Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 2 Feb 1977

Vol. 296 No. 5

Bula Limited (Acquisition of Shares) Bill, 1977: (Second Stage) (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Lalor

When I got in yesterday immediately after Deputy Desmond made his contribution I said that it appeared quite obvious to me that he had almost as many faults to find with the Bula Bill as this side of the House have but that he had to be far more genteel and evasive in the manner in which he criticised it. The most significant statement Deputy Desmond made during his contribution was the sanctimonious one that he fully appreciated, that when Ministers were appointed and took up office, the responsibility of ministerial power had the effect of changing many Deputies' minds. That summarises the approach of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to his job as Minister where he threw, as is pretty obvious in this Bill, all his socialistic ideas out the window.

The person he criticised most in the course of his script and also during his four years as Minister for Industry and Commerce is his predecessor. His admission that this Bill is a complete let down for the State is justified, as he puts it, by the mess he found there when he took up office. I was in the enviable or unenviable position, depending on one's point of view, of being an only child. One of the things I learned from that is that one has to learn to stand on one's own feet. I did not ever develop the habit, which obviously the Minister for Industry and Commerce learned at some early stage, of blaming somebody else for wetting one's bed. That is what we have from the Minister.

The Minister brings in this Bill at the end of four years in office and proceeds to blame his predecessor. He went out of his way to indicate that he spent that four years reading up the massive file in his Department on this mining question. I am inclined to think that that is the truth because there is no evidence that he has done anything else over the past four years. We have an urgent mergers Bill on the stocks for the past three years. This Minister could not find it possible to bring in the Monopolies and Mergers Bill which I prepared and introduced to the House. It was a mess that needed to be cleared up and he was going to do it within a few months and bring in a better type of Monopolies and Mergers Bill, which we are still waiting for.

The Minister came into the House yesterday and admitted, as bluntly as he could, that the Bula Bill was unsatisfactory. He was full of apologies for the necessity to introduce it and in typical Pontius Pilate fashion he said it was the least harmful thing he could do to the State arising from the mess his predecessor made. I remember him about six months after taking up office, in answering a question in the House about the motor industry, saying that he would blow the lid off and make full disclosures of the manner in which his predecessor made a mess of the motor car assembly industry. That has not yet happened. In fact, he has continued to make the same mess. The statements the Minister made early in his speech are pretty eloquent testament to the fact that he, in being given plenty of time to prepare, cannot avoid telling untruths.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should be careful about the use of the expression "untruths". An untruth or a lie should not be attributed to any Member of the House.

Mr. Lalor

I accept that and I will withdraw the expression if you will confirm to me that the statement made by the Minister on 13th December, 1974, in this House and the statement made by him here yesterday can be reconciled. In column 1924, volume 276, of the Official Report of 13th December, 1974, the Minister said:

... it is estimated that some 80 per cent of the minerals in the country are state-owned and there is no problem about these.

The Minister's statement yesterday was:

The position overall in the country is that some 40 per cent——

That is, half of what the Minister stated in 1974——

——of the mineral rights of this country are clearly State-owned and it is well accepted that the State would probably be able to establish good title to a further 25 per cent;

Can you tell me, Sir, what form of words I can use to draw attention to the misinformation given to the House under either of those two headings? I do not know which of them is right. My personal recollection is that some 80 per cent of our minerals are State-owned. Here we have the Minister establishing that after four years of his incumbency in the Department of Industry and Commerce there is a divergence of 100 per cent in three years, and he goes back four years to talk about a mess. Where does this new figure come from? Has it been based on some different calculation than his own figures, or is this the outcome of the investigation of the arbitrators in London to whom he referred this case?

When the Government wish to cover up for incompetence and inability and their overall non-performance, the spokesman invariably chosen to go on any radio programme is Deputy Justin Keating, the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He is looked upon as the one man on the Government side capable of putting a good face on incompetence. The man for raising red herrings and for taking people's minds off the practicalities of the time is the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. At successive Labour Party conferences the Minister for Industry and Commerce has been the man to bridge the bearna baoil and to try to pull the sides together when they depart from the policies on which a number of them have been elected to Dáil Éireann.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am anxious that the Deputy would not stray too far from the subject matter of the Bill.

Mr. Lalor

The subject matter of the Bill is Bula and the payment of over £9 million. The subject matter of the Minister's speech to justify that was an attack on his predecessor. From the fact that in his speech yesterday the Minister gave a figure of 40 per cent in respect of minerals as against 80 per cent in 1974 we can judge the veracity of the rest of his statement. I say he has made a mess of this operation and is blaming somebody else for that mess.

Earlier in his speech the Minister said that the main event which led up to the introduction of this Bill was perhaps the compulsory acquisition order made by the Government in respect of the Wright farm in 1971. He went on to say that the involvement of the State in the private minerals at Navan would never have come about if that order had not been made. It is remarkable to hear this ultra-socialist apologising for State involvement in mining. I think I would not be doing him an injustice if I were to say he was associated before the last general election with a type of platform labour electioneering propaganda which alleged that the last Fianna Fáil Government, through its Minister for Industry and Commerce, had sold out our minerals to foreigners. He is now telling us that only for the change of Government and only for the arrival of Deputy Justin Keating as Minister for Industry and Commerce this is exactly what would have happened. We have made some progress. In Feb-ruary-March, 1973, we had sold out, and this was being highlighted in documents being circulated around this country with which members of the Labour Party were very much involved, former friends of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, still members of his party but not friends of his any longer, as far as I can see.

In the course of his speech the Minister told us that he got some stick about this. While I was Minister for Industry and Commerce this new and valuable discovery was made. University groups and others carried out a great deal of research and came up with their own conclusions as to the value of this mine. I could never understand the basis on which they arrived at the value of the mine and I do not know the basis on which the Minister worked out his value of the property. The Minister talked a lot about upcoming and on-going things in relation to gas and oil off the south coast during the last two years and told us that this matter was on-going and that we will have it this year.

The Minister told us yesterday that production will not commence until some time this year. Good times are always coming as far as this Minister is concerned. When I was alleged to have sold—not sold; in fact, to have given away—the mineral rights of this country in 1971 and 1972 there was a tremendous amount of criticism of the conservative approach of the Fianna Fáil Government. We were told that Fianna Fáil were working hand in hand with certain individuals who were subscribing sizeable amounts to the Taca fund. Those wild allegations were made and we were being undermined and underpinned by literature which flooded the country. In my view that literature was paid for by money that was poured in here in order to offset the stability of government. Sponsored organisations at university level protested against us and weekly parades invariably led to the gates of Leinster House. Thank God the present Opposition are responsible in this regard. We will not be associated with any efforts to undermine the capacity of this House to legislate for the country. We will conduct our opposition in a legitimate way; we will give our views about the weaknesses of the Government and their incapacity to deliver in spite of all the wonderful promises they made.

Deputy Barry Desmond joined with the "red herring Minister" by blaming the Constitution for the inability of the Minister for Industry and Commerce properly to resolve this problem. Shortly afterwards the Minister, with the co-operation of a very efficient Government information service—the only efficient part of the Government—got across another promise of more legislation that would put this thing right, something like the Mergers and Monopolies Bill. Something is always going to turn up as far as the Minister for Industry and Commerce is concerned but the only thing that turns up is increased prices. After four years the Minister has apologised to the House for the fact that because of the mess his predecessor left him in he had to pay £9½ million for a 24 per cent share of this mine. He told us that he had now discovered that the 1940 Minerals Act did not enable him—I presume he also means me—to make the proper order. He said something would be done about this. That is the message that has got through to the three Dublin newspapers this morning, with the aid, of course, of the GIS.

Why did the Minister not take this action before now if that is so? The biggest thing built into the Minister's speech yesterday from that point of view was the fact that he had been studying the British legislation as it relates to a similar situation in Northern Ireland and he was thinking along those lines for us. According to today's newspapers this legislation will be introduced in the course of the next few months. The Minister talked about the reactivating of Mianraí Teoranta and made this peculiar statement:

If it had been in active existence and competently staffed in the early seventies it is possible that the Navan situation would never have occurred.

Only for his little brother wetting the bed, again. The Minister told us that because the existing legislation was defective a proper order of acquisition could not be made. He told us that he obtained legal advice from three leading senior counsels on this matter. In spite of all that, and in spite of what Deputy Barry Desmond described as the constitutional difficulties, the Minister told us that the simple solution to the whole thing was the reactivating in 1970 or 1971 of Mianraí Teoranta. Can the Minister not make up his own mind? Which of the statements I have referred to is correct? I presume there are prospecting licences in existence at present but if another valuable orebody is discovered tomorrow will the same problem which I had to face in 1970 not arise, as did then when the present Minister said I was caught with my trousers down. What has he done over the past four years to prevent himself being caught in this way? He said he has been studying legislation and he believes there is a formula for the proper type of legislation. Let him bring it in and I will certainly give him full backing.

Deputy Desmond says the Minister cannot do this. Following the Minister's speech yesterday his own backbencher who, apparently is better informed than we are because he was able to tell us something about the agreement, said that the Minister's hands are tied and that the present unfortunate, brilliant Minister for Industry and Commerce cannot do the proper thing at present because the Constitution prevents him from so doing. The Minister in his speech made reference to a constitutional difficulty in this regard. He was asked—this is rather significant—by me in May, 1973, if he would not make this amended order to which reference was made yesterday and he said that he had the advice of three senior counsel against making the order following the decisions of the High and Supreme Courts.

By way of supplementary question on 8th May, 1973, I asked about this following the High Court decision before the case was taken to the Supreme Court. The Minister yesterday conveyed the impression that he inherited from me the High Court and Supreme Court decisions. This was not so; this is another glossing over of the truth. If a Minister who has all the facts and figures before him makes a positive statement here which is not in accordance with the facts I find it very difficult to know how to describe such statements without being unparliamentary. As reported in the Official Report at column 563 of volume 265, I asked the Minister:

Might I ask the Minister would it not be wiser for him to make an amended order?

The Minister's reply was:

I have indicated that, on the balance of the advice available to me, I consider the direct course to be an appeal to the Supreme Court.

When I left office as Minister for Industry and Commerce all the information available to me—the decision as far as I recall was not to hand—was that the High Court decision would go against the Minister. I am not a legal man but I do not know, in view of that, how the Minister could have got legal advice or how any legal men could justify advising him to appeal the case to the Supreme Court because my understanding was that it could not succeed on appeal and the obvious decision would have been to make a fresh order on the morning when the High Court decision was made against him. Instead of that he delayed for almost another 12 months on appeal to the Supreme Court and when asked later about it he made the reply that was conveyed in his speech yesterday, that his advice was that it would not work.

We are backed in this by Deputy Desmond, the only Deputy so far to speak on the Government side. He agrees fully that a copy of the agreement should be made available to Deputies—he did not quite go that far; I think he suggested that a small subcommittee of the House should be set up to which papers of this nature would be presented in a confidential way. We do not look for this in a confidential way; if there is an agreement of the kind referred to so many times in the Bill, we do not accept what the Minister says regarding the confidentiality of that agreement. Deputy Desmond said that, as a result of his protesting and demanding, a copy of the Marathon agreement was laid in the Library of the Dáil. From the reaction of the Minister to our demands in regard to this agreement I can see that it is fruitless for us to endeavour to re-echo the appeal so successfully made by Deputy Desmond in this regard according to himself, but I feel I am justified in asking that the Minister should place in the Dáil Library copies of the senior counsels advice to him in regard to whether he should or should not make an amended order in 1973.

Doctors differ and patients die, but the Minister went out of his way to say that he had the advice of three senior counsel and, apparently, all their advice was that he should not make an amended order. That is his justification for landing us in the mess we are in now on top of his claim that it was his predecessor's, Deputy Lalor's, responsibility. In fairness to me, I should be given an opportunity —indeed everybody should be given the opportunity—of seeing this advice which the Minister received and copies of it should be placed in the Library. I presume that he sought advice as to whether he should appeal to the Supreme Court the High Court decision given early in 1973.

I hope the Minister will accede to my request and will put copies of the advice recommending appeal before the House. I cannot see that any responsible senior counsel or any responsible person whatsoever, unless as a delaying tactic at the time, would have recommended that the Minister should appeal that case to the Supreme Court.

The Minister referred to the progress that was made due to their withdrawing the tax concessions. This is the only thing he has to go on now as justifying the handing out of this bonus of £7.5 million to Bula Limited. He claims that 75 per cent of this will come back in tax.

During my time as Minister for Industry and Commerce we set up an inter-Departmental committee to report on the question of mining taxation. Listening to the Minister yesterday, one would think that the decisions about leasing, the terms of the leasing and all of the arrangements with regard to Tara Mines and been made and that a deal had positively been done with regard to royalties, et cetera, with Tara Mines. The fact that before I left office as Minister for Industry and Commerce, I was awaiting a report from the inter-Departmental committee to which I have referred, is clear indication that all the options were open to me as Minister.

The Minister got this report. He was asked on 12th July, 1973, if he would make the recommendations in this report available to the House. It was Deputy Tunney from this side who asked to have the report made available, if you like, laid on the Table of the House. The Minister objected to this. Because of my understanding of the situation, I intervened and said— column 911, Volume 267 of the Official Report:

I can see certain reasoning behind the Minister's argument. Would he make available to Members of the Oireachtas the straightforward recommendations made by this committee without giving details of what led up to the recommendations?

The Minister replied that he would not undertake to give a definite answer at that moment. This is understandable. I fully appreciate that a report of that nature is prepared for the Minister or Ministers concerned. It was inter-Departmental. Finance, Industry and Commerce and others would be involved. However, the recommendations of that committee should have contributed to the Minister's thinking and the Minister's and the Government's planning in relation to taxation of mining.

I was interested yesterday to hear Deputy Desmond criticising the Constitution and saying that but for this nuisance of a Constitution that we have the Government could and would own all of the minerals in the country. I was interested in that statement in so far as we want the Constitution changed so that this is so. I linked that statement immediately with a statement made by the Minister on 13th December. Following his statement about 80 per cent of the minerals in the country being State owned and that there was no problem about these—which is in direct contradiction of what he said yesterday—he went on to say—column 1924, Volume 276 of the Official Report:

Speaking as a farmer as well as Minister for Industry and Commerce we should, I believe, be careful not to be stampeded into a situation where farmers who own the minerals under their land are subjected to any compulsory procedures which have as their object the transfer of ownership to other private interests, whether the latter be foreign or Irish controlled.

I hope the Minister, when replying to the debate, will make observations on the intentions outlined by Deputy Desmond in this regard and indicate what his reactions would be as a farmer as well as Minister for Industry and Commerce.

I have already referred to the inter-Departmental committee that had been set up and whose report I was awaiting at the time I left office early in 1973. I draw attention to that in the context of the statement made by the Minister yesterday that the former Government, under the mining policies they had adopted, would not have been entitled to any return whatsoever out of the Bula mine. This is based on the assumption, convenient assumption from the Minister's point of view, that we would not have been able to establish the State's claim to the minerals in the Wright farm. I cannot accept that assumption from the Minister any more than I can accept his categorical statement about how much minerals the State owns, whether it is 80 per cent or 40 per cent at the present time. Legal advice is one thing. Application of it is another thing. If the Minister says and can prove that three reputable senior counsel gave him this advice, I will accept it.

This is where I am in fundamental disagreement with the Minister. He says that the right of the Bula people to these minerals as private minerals had been clearly established by the High Court and the Supreme Court. That is on the basis of an order which was found to be ineffective but the Minister makes it as a statement of fact. This is where I am in profound disagreement with him.

In that same speech he went on to say:

The former Government endeavoured to acquire Mr. Wright's minerals compulsorily with the intention of transferring them to certain foreign mining interests presumably in return for royalties only. These royalties would then again presumably, after the hearing of claims by the mining board, have been in effect transferred to Mr. Wright and his associates leaving the Government with nothing out of the transaction.

Is this the Minister's interpretation of compensation? Under the old Minerals Act the State could acquire, and this is what I set out to do, subject to compensation. A board, of which an official of the Department of Industry and Commerce would be chairman, had to determine the compensation. Even if the order made in 1971 had been effective, compensation would still have to be paid. We are projecting a potential figure out of the mines at present. I accept that there could be a sizeable legal wrangle in relation to the amount of compensation.

The Minister made the point that he got legal advice from the senior counsel that if the order made by the Minister was a successful order, Mr. Wright could, by way of compensation, seek the full value of the minerals under the ground. That is why I fully accept that the legislation, from that point of view, needs to be updated. I disagree with the Minister on this point: I cannot understand why he sat back in the Department for four years knowing that the legislation needed to be updated but did not do anything about it apart from conveying in his speech and at his Press conference last night that "I am going to do something about it now". Let us hope it will not get the same treatment as was given to monopolies and mergers. The Minister reminded me of the Monopolies and Mergers Bill in yesterday's speech. That legislation is to try from the State's point of view to prevent unwanted mergers. It is obvious from his speech that his ideal way of operating the orebody at Navan would be to arrange a merger but apparently it is not working out.

I know enough about this business to be annoyed when I listened to Deputy B. Desmond trying to score points by having a go at my colleague Deputy O'Malley when he accused him of being spokesman on behalf of Tara Mines. If someone is trying to make a practical contribution to this debate this kind of remark is out of order. The Minister stated, and it is fully accepted, that the most economic way from the State's point of view to have the Navan orebody worked is by a single unit if it can be arranged.

The Minister also said:

Whatever may have been the motives of those who made the order, the end result was to create a terrible mess.

That is the most generous part of his speech. He is condescending. He does not question the sincerity of the previous Minister: "He meant well, the poor old wretch, but he left me with a terrible mess to clear up." That kind of excuse is just not good enough. May I return the compliment and ask the Minister to spell out— taking into consideration the difficulties he has outlined in connection with minerals, and instead of wasting time blaming the man who left the job four years ago—what he would have done. I hope he will say that he would have changed the legislation. If I suggested that today, I would be criticised for wasting time and told that the orebody could have been worked for the last four years if the Minister of the day had done something about it.

When outlining the way the £9.54 million was to be paid for he said:

Let me point out by the way, that this money is payable in instalments, 50 per cent within 90 days, 25 per cent within one year and the remaining 25 per cent within two years.

Fifty per cent within 90 days of what? My colleague Deputy O'Malley, asked the Minister a number of questions yesterday. In his official reply the Minister said, at 3.25 p.m., that as Bula Mines would be dealt with in the next business, all his questions were covered in his speech and there was no point in answering the questions at that time. There was a confrontation between the Minister and the Deputy. The Minister then gave what he felt was the correct reply but, from Deputy O'Malley's reaction, he was not too satisfied with it. I did not take a note of the Minister's reply to these matters but it was obvious that he did not give the information sought by Deputy O'Malley. However, as the Deputy indicated, we did not expect the Minister to be in a position to reply.

I am wondering what is meant by the statement that 50 per cent of £9.54 million must be paid within 90 days. The agreement was reached in December, 1975. Last week I, as Whip, rereived a message to the effect that the Bill must be through by February 9th but I can see nothing either in the Bill or in the Minister's Second Reading statement to indicate any deadline in regard to the payment of this amount. I trust the Minister will tell us what is the meaning of this phrase "within 90 days". It must refer to a period within 90 days of something. That is approximately three months but it cannot mean three months from December, 1975 because such date has long since passed. Perhaps we have a three-month period from the date on which the agreement is to come into effect but it is unfortunate that we have not been told specifically when this money is to be paid. In these circumstances I must assume that we have three months from the time of the Minister making his statement, that is, three months from yesterday in which to pay this 50 per cent, but that is a part of the agreement of which we have not been apprised.

I am not prepared to accept the Minister's criticism of me as Minister in regard to this issue. We recall the vicious arguments put forward four years ago, principally by spokesmen for the Labour Party but generally by anybody who was in opposition to the then Government, to the effect that we had sold out the country's mineral rights. This is the type of evocative criticism we get during election campaigns. Yet, the Minister comes in now with a Bill which does not please us and which obviously does not please him because he introduces it with the apology that it is the best he can do as a result of the mess Lalor left behind. However, allowing for the Minister's predecessor being a bogman, might we not have expected something better than this feeble excuse from a man who is supposed to be one of the leading academics who replaced us? The Minister went on to explain how this socalled mess arose. It was due, he said, to ineffective legislation but he knows that the remainder of the lifetime of this Dáil will not be long enough to have enacted the amending legislation he promises.

Mr. Staunton

I am glad to have the opportunity of speaking on this issue. As the Minister has indicated, in debating this issue of the agreement with Bula we are dealing with an issue which concerns the entire politics of mining, with the politics of State participation and in particular within this country with the attitudes which have been adopted by this Government and by their predecessors.

I should like to begin by commenting on the attitudes of the Opposition. Their attitude on this issue can be likened in some respects to their attitude on fisheries. As the party who neglected this issue during the EEC Treaty of Accession negotiations they now do a complete somersault and attempt to blame the Government for the bind in which we find ourselves as a result of the negotiations at that time. Their attitude is even worse in relation to mining. There have been aspects of national policy which have been concerning many of us for a number of years. I am referring to some cases relating to mineral resources and to our general natural resources. Many of us on this side of the House believe that we took over from a Government whose attitudes in some areas were enlightened and sensible but whose attitude in the natural resources area was the most reactionary and ultraconservative of any administration in the world.

This Government have been attacked by the Opposition in relation to our policy on oil finds but in this regard we inherited a policy of a single licence being issued to a single company off the south-west coast. Oil is flowing in Norway and Britain as a result of Government decisions made a decade ago. It will be seen, therefore, that the criticism of the Opposition now is a reflection on their administration in this area. Oil would be flowing here, too, if the correct decisions had been taken a decade ago. I am merely emphasising those two areas of oil and fisheries to illustrate the lack of philosophy and the type of reaction we suffered from during the Fianna Fáil administration.

There was considerable disquiet a few years ago because of an attitude which suggested that the mineral resources underground could be developed only in terms of a policy which allowed total relief from taxation to interested parties. Despite the succession of discoveries within the past decade there was no change in the attitude of the Government from whom we took over. The situation was entirely different from that of the industrial development policy because when we speak about that policy in terms of export tax relief we are talking about an operation that is continuous and which can go on for a limited number of years. It is a form of activity which has an infinite future and, when we are talking about mining, we are talking about something finite, a wasting resource which will be exhausted at a particular time. It was for that reason that one of the first laws enacted by this National Coalition Government was legislation introduced to tax mining profits in the interests of the general public. It is interesting to go back to that debate and examine the attitudes and see the extraordinary vehemence with which this legislation was opposed by the Fianna Fáil Party. Deputy Colley, the Opposition spokesman on Finance, opposed totally the policy of taxing mining profits and he drew completely unfair analogies in suggesting that by introducing that tax measure the Government would lose credibility as a Government among the international community and that would result in a drastic reduction in the level of industrial development here. According to Deputy Colley and the Fianna Fáil Party, the international trading community could no longer trust the integrity of the Irish Government and would be chary about future industrial development here.

The country was assured at that time that the Government's attitude was entirely different from its attitude in the industrial development policy area and the Government did not intend tampering with export tax reliefs. That has proved to be the case and it is an indictment of the attitude of the Opposition three years ago who were seriously suggesting there would be a huge drop in industrial development. Despite a major recession, we managed to extend the level of investment and that makes a total nonsense of the attitude adopted by the Fianna Fáil Party at that time on that issue. As an undeveloped country, we are dependent on investment from outside because of lack of technology, technical resources and funds of the magnitude necessary. We are dependent on foreign investment and I think that, psychologically, the problem the Opposition have had is that, having been in Government for nearly 16 years and the overseer, as it were, of investment from overseas, they are hung up on the question of the extent to which we have to make ventures profitable to foreign interests, even to the extent that we must sell everything.

It was suggested that the legislation then would limit mining activity. The fact is that Canadians expressed to me their amazement at the situation because scope exists here that exists nowhere else. More recently Canadian officials told me that mining people in Canada, when seeking concessions from their Government, invariably quote Ireland as an alternative for mining development if they are not getting the concessions they are seeking.

This Government taxed mining development. That was in no sense a radical move. It was a sensible move from a very right-of-centre position to somewhere nearer the centre. I upheld the necessity for that legislation. It was against that background we are now looking at the Bula issue. It is easy to become emotional when talking about valuations and private ownership. It is easy to pander to emotion. We see enormous sums going into the hands of a few people. But we must look at the reality and the background of the Wright case in which private ownership was established by our courts. Private ownership is a fact of life. It was something with which this Government had to deal where Bula was concerned. Fortunately, the Minister had an option, an option that did not exist in the case of Tara. In talking about valuation we are talking about a situation where 25 per cent of equity is coming to the Government without charge. We are also talking about the valuation of the remaining 24 per cent which will form part of the Government's equity. The kernel here is the question of the valuation of this 24 per cent. The Opposition's allegation is that this is a gross price and a profligate expenditure by the Government utterly detrimental to the interests of the people.

I would like now to deal in some detail with this valuation issue. The valuation arrived at by the London arbitrators, by agreement between Bula and the Minister weighed up the background the Minister described in his speech, weighed up the evidence, the extent to which ore exists, the planning permission and the objections as to the untried nature of the mine and its workability, production costs, the market situation now and in the future. It was on that basis that the price arrived at has been criticised. Had the Government adopted the attitude of some Opposition spokesmen and decided not to take an option in the mine now but waited until two or three years hence when work had actually started, and then proposed to take an option in the same proportions, we would be talking of a valuation infinitely greater should the mine prove successful. It seems to me entirely realistic for the Government at this stage to decide there should be this investment in this type of activity. This is the time at which to get in.

Of course there is a risk factor in Bula. Of course, there is the possibility that this investment can turn sour. All investments can turn sour. Investments of a risk venture nature are such that, if successful, they lead to enormous appreciation of capital. In this case if the mining proves successful, we are talking about an enormous increase in the valuation of Government assets. Having regard to the fact that it is so close to the Tara orebody, and the fact that apparently the ore is very near the surface, it seems to me a very reasonable valuation of the 24 per cent of which we are speaking.

Before there was any development of the Tara Mines there was an enormous market value appreciation in the stock market of Tara shares at the time when those mines were untried. If the State waited and took the prudent course suggested by Deputy O'Malley, we could have a realist valuation of the 24 per cent which could amount to £100 million It is distinctly possible having regard to the valuation of other mines which have been developed.

I should like to comment on some of the remarks made yesterday by Deputy O'Malley about the valuation of this 24 per cent. It seems to me he was reading a speech prepared by the research team. It seems to me the attitude adopted was grossly unfair to the Minister and to the people of this country. An attempt was made to build up the actual valuation of the 24 per cent at £9.54 million out of all proportion, to gain political advantage. As was pointed out in the Minister's speech, the gross valuation of the 24 per cent amounting to £9.54 million is less than that when you discount the interest involved in funds.

Mr. C. Murphy

I wonder does Deputy Staunton mean 24 per cent rather than 25 per cent as a matter of accuracy?

Mr. Staunton

On the question of this valuation the £9.54 million is a gross figure. As the Minister has pointed out, taking into account the fact that a considerable proportion of those funds will not be paid for some time, the realistic valuation at present of the price paid is approximately £8.4 million. Looking at the sums Deputy O'Malley as Fianna Fáil spokesman laboured on yesterday, we find he suggested that this £8.4 million net price to the Government represents a profit to the Bula people.

Mr. C. Murphy

Could I inquire where this £8.4 million comes from?

Acting Chairman (Mr. Governey)

The Deputy must be allowed to continue. Deputy Murphy will have an opportunity to speak later.

Mr. Staunton

For the purpose of accuracy, I will be very glad to help Deputy Murphy if he will allow me about 30 seconds to find the relevant section from which I have been quoting.

Mr. C. Murphy

Page 6.

Mr. Staunton

For Deputy Murphy's benefit, the gross price is £9.54 million which is being paid by the Government in instalments of 50 per cent within 90 days, 25 per cent in one year, and the remaining 25 per cent within two years. If you apply a reasonable interest rate to this schedule of payments and express it in terms of current values, the sum of money payable by the State comes out at £8.37 million. I suggest a round figure of £8.4 million which I believe is reasonably accurate. This is the realistic present value of the Government investment in Bula Mines.

I want to place particular emphasis on the Fianna Fáil's spokesman's speech yesterday in which the keynote was the quantifying of this profit to suggest it represented a gross profit to the promoters of the Bula Mines of £298 million. This is a slightly technical matter which needs to be developed to reject totally and out of hand the sums worked out by the Fianna Fáil spokesman. For example, as Deputy O'Malley said, we are talking about 24 per cent State investment valued at £9.54 million which suggests that the 50 per cent approximately retained by Bula has a valuation of £20 million which is in total a valuation of about £30 million on the 24 per cent which they have sold along with the 21 per cent which they have retained.

He attempted to quantify this by suggesting this represented a profit of £298 million in the sense that corporation profits tax would be deducted from that gross figure leaving £149 million and suggesting that the private shareholders' tax liability on the remaining £149 million at approximately 8 per cent on personal income tax at a higher rate before the recent budget left the 20 per cent for this at £30 million. This is a total fiction and it is quite dishonest in the sense that he extended it to suggest that the £298 million when quantified throughout the land meant that each unemployed person was paying a sum of so many pounds into the pockets of the promoters. This is a farcical type of book-keeping and it totally lacks credibility and is a reflection of an attitude which seeks to get political exposure by pandering to the emotions of people who might be gullible in this area.

The Government have merely purchased the 24 per cent to which I have referred. The Government have got 25 per cent in addition to that as part of their equity for which they are not paying anything. In so far as the excess of 50 per cent held by the Bula shareholders is concerned suggesting that this represents a profit to them of £150 million is merely a realistic appraisal by the London board of arbitrators of what the valuation of that mine is. The valuation of the shareholding held by Bula, in a free enterprise economy where private ownership has been established by the courts, is an issue entirely separate from the question of the Government taking their 24 per cent for £9 million.

It seems extraordinary to me that a party such as the Fianna Fáil Party with their philosohical commitment to private enterprise and to free enterprise should twist this argument and twist the State investment in the 24 per cent to build up sums about 51 per cent held by Bula and suggest that is the type of profit the company are having. In a free enterprise economy if Bula hold a shareholding in excess of 50 per cent, if there is a shareholding in private ownership established by the Supreme Court, and if an institute of arbitrators put a value on the Bula shareholding, that is the value in their judgement. The market value of the shares might be more or might be less. It might be outstandingly more when this mine is developed.

Where on earth is the point in bringin this £9 million of Government investment to 24 per cent to suggest a profit of about £300 million and to suggest that this, scattered around the people on the dole would mean so much more to them? It is a totally dishonest sum to be rejected out of hand. There is no shadow of doubt about it. I hope that it will be dealt with as cursorily as it should be. It was a completely misleading speech and seemed to me to have been prepared by people with a commercial background, which even more makes it lack credibility, because at least people with a commercial background in quantifying these types of things dealing with corporation profits tax, discount and cash load, tax liabilities, knew precisely what they were talking about. If they did it was an entirely dishonest exercise to project this £9 million investment in the 24 per cent of Bula and suggest profits of £298 million to Bula which were costing this country a fortune. As the Minister stated, of the price paid by the Government for the 24 per cent in Bula a proportion of that works its way back into the Exchequer in different areas of capital taxation. As I have said, if the Government at a later stage rather than at the risk venture stage choose to become involved and to take their 24 per cent shareholding, then the costs could be infinitely greater than they are in this instance.

There was an objection to the price paid and the deal made on the basis that the money goes to the shareholders and not to the company, but if this is the attitude of the Opposition Party, who have been the champions of private enterprise and opposed totally to socialistic philosophy that seems an unusual objection. If we are talking about the mere purchase by the Government of shares held by a company, the purpose of the Government is to get the shares in question. If we are talking about private enterprise economy, what the owners of those shares do with that money is their business and is not the business of the Government. It seems an extraordinary attitude of Deputy O'Malley and of Fianna Fáil to object to the shareholders getting these funds since the ownership of that mine has been established in the courts of the land.

Again there is an objection from Fianna Fáil that there will not be Government control of the workings of this mine in that there will be only two Government members on the board of ten. We are not seeking State domination. It is a private mine in which the Government have a minority equity holding of a substantial nature. In these circumstances we do not necessarily seek Government control. There will be a watching brief for Government in the proceedings of that board. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has ultimate control in representing the Government's interest in so far as the broader issues of mining are concerned. I am quite certain that the Minister's directors on the board of Bula will keep him advised of the position of that company and if there is any reason for national disquiet about the workings of that board then the Minister for Industry and Commerce will ultimately be in a position to take the necessary action.

There is not much more I want to say other than to repeat my approval of general Government attitude in the mining area. I approve of the move to tax mining profits. It should have been done long ago. I do not believe for one instant that the mining resources of this country will not be developed because of that policy. The Bula shareholding, while controversial, has my approval. It seems a reasonable bet that this Bula mine will be a success in the long-term.

Mr. Crinion

One thing that surprises me in this Bill is that there is no reference, good, bad or indifferent, to the concern of the people of Navan. The State is buying a 24 per cent share in this mine without planning permission and without knowing whether it is going to be refused or whether the case will go to the appeal board who could refuse planning permission. What will happen if a situation like that occurs? It is quite on the cards that it will. There is quite a high feeling in Navan since it was mentioned that it was to be an open-cast mine as against the underground one across the river at Tara. This proposed mine is quite close to the main residential area in Navan which has been built up over the last ten years. There will be quite a large number of objections to open-cast mining in this field.

If a person is buying a site for a house or a factory he always pays a deposit subject to planning permission. There is nothing in this Bill to say that planning permission would be granted. We have seen in the newspapers, denied by the Minister and the Meath county manager, that there has been some verbal agreement between the officers of Meath County Council and the appeal board, that, irrespective of what happens, planning permission will be given for this mine. I would be surprised that a State would invest so much of what is public money in a mine when they do not know whether it can get off the ground or not. I know that the planning permission application is only half-way through and there are quite a lot of questions still to be answered by Bula to the Meath County Council. There will be the objections of the residents which will go to the appeal board.

I would like to point out why open-cast can be of such concern to those people. It is only two fields away from Silver Lawn and beyond that are Blackcastle and Troytown Heights. The whole place has a very large number of houses and people, and a new school and a new church are being built there. This mine and those houses are on higher ground in the line of the prevailing wind. If there is any dust whatsoever coming from the mine, which can be expected from open-cast, it will reach those people.

Has the Minister examined the health aspect, particularly where there is lead? I gather there are quite a number of other small trace elements which can be quite dangerous to health. Have the Government examined that aspect of it before rushing in to invest money in Bula? It has been mentioned that it is near the surface. I understand that it will be necessary to go down about 68 feet. If there is that type of head overground it should be possible to reinforce it and to work underneath. This has been done in some of the coalfields in England. I know that a certain amount of ordinary mining will be carried out if planning permission is given but the main concern is the large hole, nearly 300 feet deep, over almost 100 acres in such close proximity to the town of Navan.

Speakers opposite have mentioned the assets which the Government will acquire. They say the Government would have to pay more if they waited for three or four years and that they are getting good value at present. But this is a diminishing asset and one must ask if it is worth the investment.

The application to divert the River Blackwater has not yet been made. This diversion is essential, although I gather they can carry on work for a couple of years without the diversion. I wonder if the Minister has taken account of the fact that the diverted river will run through an area owned by Tara Mines. This is part of the McCormack farm which has been fully purchased by Tara Mines. If Tara refused to allow the river to be diverted through this land there is nothing the Minister can do. There is nothing in this Bill to give him compulsory purchased powers. Since the Minister is only a minority shareholder in both the Bula and Tara companies he will not be able to force this issue. Both these companies are working the same orebody and relations between them are not the best. It is quite possible that Tara will refuse to give the necessary permission to divert the river and the Minister has no power under any of the mining Acts to ensure that the diversion will go through.

The main concern in Navan is the big open-cast. We should like to see an underground tunnel and we also want the work to go ahead fairly quickly. There will be lay-offs soon by the contractors working at the Tara mine. There will also be lay-offs in the area by Roadstone Ltd. and extra jobs are urgently needed. There has been delay on the part of the Minister.

The figure of 75 per cent of profit is impressive but it is doubtful if there will be any profit. I should prefer to see a system of royalties in line with what the mine is worth. This would save the State from investing large sums of money. The royalties could be fixed at a realistic rate and it would be necessary only to keep an account of the lorries or wagons carrying the ore from the mines. Twenty years ago there were some people thinking of prospecting in this country. They actually looked for a Government grant to aid them in this prospecting work. We have come a long way since then but it must be remembered that the geological office said that we had no minerals in Ireland. We were all told at school that there were no minerals here. It was understandable that anyone thinking of prospecting here would seek a State grant. However, our former leader refused to spend any public money on digging holes. He told them to take their chances and said that the State would take royalties on any workings. There was no stipulation as to the amount of such royalties. They could be adjusted to meet the needs of the time.

I feel, and it is felt locally, that the two companies should join together. Mining should continue underground straight in from the Tara field, even for the ore that is near the top. I understand it is at 68 feet, which is not too near the top, and it would not cost too much to reinforce it so that it could be mined underground. Even though the Government have a minority shareholding in Tara, they have been allowed to implement plans for mills that they maintain will only cater for their own mines and could not take in Bula. At the industrial planning stage the mills should have been made large enough to take in the whole orebody if necessary. In regard to open cast mining, the company proposed to use the roads of Meath to Drogheda—not the main road through Navan and on to Slane but the back roads. This will be heavy on the roads. I feel sure that Meath County Council will incorporate something in the planning permission, if it is ever given, so that Bula will have to subscribe a certain sum every year to pay for the upkeep of the roads. The Tara mine has already had to pay for the upkeep of roads. Has that been taken into account? How much money will have to be provided there and how much will be provided for landscaping? Bula have set out their own plans and drawn them to scale, but it is possible that Meath County Council will ask for substantially higher figures and for substantially higher standards to be set.

This is the first time I have ever heard a Minister and other Government speakers saying that they were going into a risk business with public funds, and that it is better to get in now than in three-or four-years' time. When dealing with public funds one must be more than careful and the element of risk should be cut to a minimum. This is the most risky business in the world. We do not know how it will develop. While the Government have 49 per cent of the shares they have only two members on a board of ten and they can be outvoted. They are holding a watching brief. They have no control if directors are not carrying on as the State would like. Of course the Government could come back and nationalise it but that would mean more money going into this big hole.

The granting of planning permission is a long way off. The Minister should use his good offices to try to have the two companies amalgamated and to mine everything under ground. If they got on with the work as quickly as possible there would be a lot less trouble with the planning permission. We would have employment right away or within a reasonable time. With the present proposal it would take 15 months from the time planning permission was granted until the mine goes into production. If the amalgamation of the two companies took place it would allay the very genuine fears of people who have invested in buying houses in Navan near to the mine.

Mr. C. Murphy

Deputy Staunton in his contribution continued on the same lines as the Minister. Deputy Staunton mentioned certain sources who had more or less complimented him on the Government introducing taxation on mining, and had asked why it had not been done before. This is all hearsay. To try to substantiate that and make it more credible, the Deputy took a remote source, Canada. Deputy Staunton referred to the State paying £9.54 million for a 24 per cent holding but said that we were not actually paying £9.54 million, that, because of the system of paying this money, the State will pay only £8.37 million. This is ludicrous.

If we had £9.54 million from our own resources it is possible that the Minister's programme would be feasible, because they would be able to invest it. But the hard facts are that we do not have the £9.54 million. We will have to borrow that amount at extremely high interest rates. I do not know how anybody could have the gall to try and put that across on Deputies and on the Irish public. I had hoped the Minister would do better than that. It is a scandal; it is a shame. Where has the Minister this £9.54 million? If he has it, where did he get it and what is he paying for it?

Deputy Staunton tried to refute the calculations made by Deputy O'Malley, but I should like to tell him that these calculations were prepared by a well known actuary in Dublin and the source cannot be refuted. Deputy Staunton continued the pattern of trying to throw mud in the hope that some of it would stick. The Minister tried to throw some mud in the hope that some of it would stick on the Opposition but he fails to realise that the mud is so clammy and tacky that it will not fly. It is sticking to the Minister.

Mr. Keating

It is sticking where it started, on that side.

Mr. C. Murphy

It is not. The Minister will have an opportunity of replying. Deputy Staunton said he was confident that this venture would succeed. He was even more assured than the Minister was. In the course of his speech the Minister said:

I believe we will still have a substantial credit balance. At the very worst. I do not think that we can lose, because even if the minerals are left unworked in the ground our participating interest will remain to bear fruit at some later date in the future.

I know the Minister has a wonderful and distinguished record in regard to the development of soil in agriculture, but I should like to know what fertiliser he is going to use to get this £9.54 million to grow.

Mr. Keating

The Deputy should come and listen to my reply.

Mr. C. Murphy

I hope the Minister will tell me that.

Mr. Keating

I will indeed.

Mr. C. Murphy

I should now like to talk about the exploitation of mineral resources. The litigation involved in determining the ownership of the minerals and the ignorance displayed by the Government, and the Minister, in their efforts to try and enter the commercial jungle highlight the inadequacy of the approach of the Government to an orderly development of our resources — metal, oil and other natural resources — for the benefit of the people of Ireland. We should look at how this is being approached. Where is the orderly development? Where will come the cream which will go for our hospitals, schools and homes and to improve the quality of life for our people?

Surely, it is the responsibility of the Government to have a good policy that will be flexible enough to be applied to each individual situation and to see that the maximum benefit will yield from it, taking into account the current and future needs of the economy. At all times autonomy and control must be retained by the Government on behalf of the people. If we look at this case we find that the payment of £9.54 million for a 24 per cent shareholding in a small mining project is not the way to develop an overall resources development programme. The matter of paying this huge amount of money is incredible. It borders on being a complete joke and would be so were it not so serious.

The first thing we must do is to establish that any minerals are the property of the Irish State and its people. Landowners, in some circumstances, may have rights to compensation, certainly for the land. Dependent on the type of title held, they may be entitled to compensation for the unexplored and undeveloped value of the minerals. That is the way State ownership of minerals can become equitable, whatever the circumstances. Piecemeal legislation like this will not be successful. In our progress as a State we have developed certain knowledge in the private and public sectors but have not yet developed the expertise to explore, to produce, to refine or to market lead and zinc. For that reason we must accept that we require to get this expertise from outside. It is the only logical way forward for us. The end itself should not be the natural resource; it should be the utilisation of this natural resource to improve the quality of life for all our people.

Mr. Keating

Hear, hear.

Mr. C. Murphy

In addition to expertise there are substantial capital requirements connected with discovery and development of proven ore resources or reserves. We must look for a working partner, for a credible working partner, and the first requirements of the acceptability of a working partner must be expertise and money. As we debate this Bill it is not apparent that the Government have acquired a partner with either, and I should like to ask the Minister if he or the Government have acquired on behalf of the Irish people a good working partner with expertise and money. The State in its contribution to this partnership should be there firstly as a controlling partner taking into account the Government's appreciation of economic needs both in the short term and for the future. While maintaining this control the Government can still contribute the facility to this selected partner who is providing the expertise and capital. Like any commercial owner with an asset or invention for which there is a demand, the Government should permit by way of licence the development of the orebody. It should be no part of the business of an Irish Government at this time, when one considers all the capital needs that exist here for the development of all facets of our economy and for the provision from taxation and current income, to have to meet this capital. We must have capital to develop the various needs of the community. We cannot starve all the other sectors to tie up capital in a project like this.

We should certainly not spend our capital on providing a windfall of tax-free profits to shareholders, whatever the circumstances and whatever the hypothetical attraction. We should charge our partner a licence fee based on each ton produced and taking into account — this is important — the need to reward that partner adequately. This can be done by royalty on production and taxation of profits. We can stimulate development in this way, utilising our town scarce capital and allowing considerations other than short-term ones to prevail. We can determine the economic production rates bearing in mind the prolongation of the life of the asset. This, in turn, will give the opportunity for the development of refining and other down-stream usages and all the economic benefits that could be derived from this. Instead of diminishing the asset, quickly because of the need to recover our own capital, we can create an economic multiplier with its consequent effect on jobs, development and contribution towards the broadening of the industrial base. The method the Minister hopes to use in this Bill will not bring about the proper utilisation of the benefits that can be acquired from mineral resources for the Irish State and the Irish people. I ask the Minister to ponder deeply and take this back. It is not workable.

Mr. Wilson

I rise to oppose this Bill. I draw the attention of the House to Deputy O'Malley's statement of principle at the beginning of his speech yesterday when he said:

I support the principle of obtaining the maximum benefit for the people of Ireland from all our natural resources whether minerals of hydrocarbons, on shore or off shore.

I believe the Minister for Industry and Commerce, from what I know of him, would have the same objective. He would want to obtain for the country the maximum benefit for the people of Ireland from all resources, including those at Bula. We contend that this Bill incorporates proposals which are not conducive to obtaining the maximum benefit for the people of Ireland.

I want to change the scene a little bits, to get a kind of outside view of this Bill. I suggest that we go outside the Dáil altogether, that we go to a boardroom someplace in Ireland. We know from the air of expectancy around the boardroom, which is easily divined from the attitude of the directors, that there is something important on. The usual procedures at the meeting is that the directors assemble and the chairman has the agenda. The minutes, matters arising from the minutes and correspondence will be on it, but high up on the list will be this proposal to spend for the company the sum of £9.54 million. I think it was Dr. Johnson who said that nothing concentrates the mind like hanging. Nothing concentrates the mind of a board of directors as much as having to risk £9.54 million. This is a substantial sum of money no matter how big the company is. Consequently when the proposal comes before the board of directors they will be very careful about what they do.

They will come to the proposition early on in their agenda and they will devote some time to it. No hasty decision will be made. I shall assume that I am the one who is trying to sell this particular deal to the board of directors. I have to answer their questions and their doubts. It is presumed that the most careful and detailed study will be made of this proposal. What approach am I likely to adopt? I propose to the directors that they approve now the expenditure of £9.54 million for the purchase of 24 per cent shareholding in a company called Bula Ltd. They propose to develop a mining project on land near the Blackwater river, adjacent to the town of Navan and a built-up area.

I cannot give very much more information to my fellow board members other than I am going to spend £9.54 million. I am saying that, in my opinion, we on the board, on behalf of the shareholders, whom I will not let into all my secrets, should approve my proposal. I tell them I have had a study made of the proposal, that I have got advice and that I have had the price adjudicated by arbitrators. I am talking as if I were selling this thing myself. I say to them "You must approve this for me. I give you my personal assurance that this is all right. You may invest £9.54 million." One can imagine the reaction of the directors at this stage. If we are to accept the normal human reactions they are looking at me rather suspiciously. Indeed they must be thinking of giving me the brush there and then. We will assume that they are temperate men and consequently they will start asking me questions. The first one they will ask me is where this £9.54 million is to come from. The company are not in such a sound financial position. On current budget it has been running a deficit for a number of years. Directly itself, and indirectly, it has amassed a debt of something like £1.35 billion. Local leaders have been milked dry. Many foreign markets have been tapped, some of them carrying dangerous connotations of hard currency versus soft currency.

This is the situation and the board of directors know this. Deficits of three to four years have to be catered for. Therefore they ask "Where am I going to get the money." All I can say is "Borrow it wherever I can, at home or abroad." But I have to borrow anyway, so the deficit will be growing larger. I expect to get more questions. They have not exactly digested that one yet about borrowing. "When do I pay this money?" I just cannot tell them. That as yet remains confidential and secret. "Have I to borrow at the very high rates that obtain at the moment? If so, when does the operation begin to pay off? When does the money begin to come back in again?" Of course, I cannot tell them how soon it will come back if it will ever come back. It is a mining project.

There is the question of planning permission. All of them will have got a document from An Taisce recently about problems connected with planning permission and with open cast mining as against going down underground to mine. All my directors are listening to this. They know these problems exist, and I have no guarantee that planning permission will be received at all. I know, and the directors all round me know, that this can be a very tricky situation. They know it is more than likely that if the local council grant permission there will be a fight before the new planning board, and this of course means time and the people who lend money and fix interest rates will be chalking up all the time.

I am asked then by somebody about this planning application. "Is it comprehensive? Does it cover all aspects of the development of this Bula mine?" If I am honest I have to say that around Navan and in circles that know the score on this there is talk about diverting a river and that in the planning application this is not mentioned at all and this is a very serious aspect of it.

Another question I may be asked is "Is there a production plan for the project?" My answer is "Yes, the company have a production plan. I have seen it but I cannot tell you about it. That is part of the secret and confidential area." Then they ask me — and they are not on this board or they should not be anyway if they are not hard-headed, if they do not know all the questions to ask and if they will not be satisfied until they get straight answers to the questions—"How much will it cost to get the mine into production?" I have to say: "That is a secret also. I cannot tell you that."

Then there is the question "Will the company or I, putting the project, have to subscribe share capital or give guarantees for the company to enable it to get into production?" I cannot say that either. I am beginning to get red under the ears at this board meeting. I am asked "How did I get into this mess at all if everything is secret and confidential?" I am asked then, which is important from the point of view of capital equipment, whether the mining will be open cast mining or underground. The open cast, as we know — all the Members of the House got a document from An Taisce — is a very dirty game and is likely to run into serious trouble in an area at the edge of a substantial country town. I cannot answer that. I do not know whether it will be open cast or underground mining. The planning authority will have something to say about that. The local planning authority or the newly-established one will have their conditions written in, but all that is secret, confidential, and the information is not forthcoming to the board.

They ask me then what we are mining, what we are going to sell. We know that. Hopefully, we are selling lead and zinc concentrates. At least the board are relieved to know I have some information, but I cannot tell them how much lead we will be producing by the time we have it for sale nor how much zinc will be produced. They themselves know, as has often happened before in this country in the development of mining, that it was profitable to put money into mines at a certain stage and then metal or ore prices dropped disastrously, and the proposition became uneconomic. There is great fluctuation in these ores.

Then they will ask me, even if they do accept the need for secrecy about my proposed share purchase, my secrecy about the provision of capital, "Who is going to run this company and how much experience have they in this field?". I am afraid I will have to say that this is their first experience of a difficult and dangerous operation. The next question will naturally be in connection with the repayment of the £9.54 million. I cannot give an exact time for that. They will have to ask me bluntly whether I think the mine will ever go into production on its own or will long-term sales contracts be necessary as a guarantee beforehand. There will also be questions in connection with security for this £9.54 million.

There is a story told about Disraeli and Rothschild in connection with the Suez Canal. Disraeli's messenger arrived to ask for so many million pounds while Rothschild was having breakfast. Over his buttered toast, Rothschild nodded and said "Yes, that is all right, but what is the security of the British Government?". I do not know whether such a dramatic event is possible here, but the £9.54 million obviously belongs to the people. They may very well continue to ask me questions, because it is a serious undertaking to invest such a large sum of money. I cannot say when, if ever, we will get the money back. Interest will have to be paid on it from the date of borrowing, irrespective of when work starts on the mine. Again, that seems to be a secret. I am being grilled at this meeting as it is an important matter for all concerned. The meeting goes on for a long time and the chairman summarises the problem — that £9.54 million is required for the project and that it will have to be borrowed. I do not know when we will be able to repay it. I do not know what the running yield will be on it. The eventual value is in doubt. There are too many variables for me to be able to give a hard answer. I must also report that the directors are not experienced in this particular field. I must include in my summary of the discussion that I do not know when mining will start or how long it will last. At this stage I am defeated and the only attitude I can adopt is "Whether you like it or not I am investing £9.54 million."

We have been in control of this company for a few years and have lost money each year. On 30th June, 1976, the public sector debt was twice what it was 18 months previously. Many of our trading operations have closed. Prices have risen for goods and services. All prices were increased to make money available for the unfortunate people who have lost their jobs in the closure over which we have presided. I say we have the strength and the votes. This must go through even if there is a grey area and a range of questions have not been answered and are regarded as secret or confidential. The vote will be called for and people will troop in and support it. They will spend the £9.54 million. They must vote for it if they are to hold onto their jobs on the board of directors. Businesswise, the situation is ridiculous.

Mr. F. O'Brien

I am happy to have an opportunity to speak on this Bill, which is an important one for the mining industry.

I sympathise with the Opposition who are trying to make a case against it. So far, some of the speakers have made no case. One can only come to the conclusion that they are trying to whitewash their past ineptitude and record in the mining industry. When they had the reins they gave the nation's wealth away. They were not concerned. The late Gerard Sweetman gave a four-year tax concession which was good at that time because there was little doing in the mining area. Without very much demand from the mining industry that tax-free concession was raised to 20 years. Most people realise that there is very little left in any mine after 20 years expect large mounds of earth. A few jobs and little else would have accrued to the people in 20 years. There was absolutely no planning and very little thought was given to the matter. It was a lazy man's attitude in the hope that something might happen at the end of the road.

It took this Government to change the tax concessions within the mining industry. When the Government were restructuring the tax concessions we had puerile protests led by a former Minister who tried to say that the jobs of mine workers were at stake. The people who own the mines knew their stake was sound and that they had a duty to pay tax. The important point is that the State is buying shares in the mining industry. As well as getting taxes, the nation will benefit from being a shareholder in this great venture. We are talking about £9½ million. We will buy into 24 per cent of the Bula Mining Company and we shall get a 25 per cent stake in the company free. As a result of that stake in the company we shall also get a 25 per cent stake in the Tara Mining Company. So, for £9.5 million we are going to buy into one-third of the whole Navan ore industry. Four billion pounds would be the estimate of the gross mineral value and as a result our stake will be one and one-third billion for our investment of £9.5 million.

If there is anything to be said about this debate it is that Fianna Fáil are consistent in their attitude to mining. They are completely disinterested in it if they can come here and talk about this being a bad deal. The arguments they put up were puerile and one is amazed that they persist in this debate because the longer it goes on in my view the more they are being shown up as an incompetent Opposition.

They talk about secretary but there is nothing secret about this when it is being debated openly in the House. The terms of the deal are more than generous. We have not had any alternative proposal from the Opposition as to what should be done except, I suppose, to adopt the attitude adopted in the past and let the multinationals have a free for all, take all they can and leave us with nothing.

We want to get this industry going as quickly as possible and that is why it is important that this Bill should be finalised and that the Bula operation can get under way. There are jobs at stake as well as a vast income for the State. Although there is an investment of £9.5 million there is a clawback by way of tax, wealth tax, capital gains tax and acquisitions tax, which will take back portion of that sum. The Opposition bitterly opposed these taxes when they were going through this House. Again, this shows the Opposition approach to the Bill: their spokesman said this £9.5 million was free of tax but it is not so. Obviously, the Revenue Commissioners will examine the case in the light of the tax mechanisms and will take their share. It is pathetic to find the chief spokesman on Industry and Commerce for the Opposition saying that no tax will be taken; obviously, he did not do his homework.

It is important to remember the part the State can and will play in the development of natural resources. Possibly the ideal would be for the State to undertake the development itself. I think there was legislation enacted in 1940 and in 1942 to set up this type of operation but while it is all very well to pass an Act one must have the expertise and the capital in order to develop. As it is being done, the expertise and the capital had to come into the country to open up the mining industry without any real cost to the State. When companies spend millions boring holes for oil and find none it does not cost the State anything and when they bore for minerals and get nothing it costs the State nothing. But when the wealth of these mines has been evaluated and the State then comes in, in a very prudent way, and for a very small sum of money buys into one-third of the total mining industry in the Navan area for £9.5 million, I cannot understand how that can be described as a bad deal. I find the negative approach of the Opposition hard to understand. We know they are bad but it is pathetic to find they are that bad.

Deputy Wilson's speech indicated his lack of conviction in this opposition because, by and large, he said nothing in the 15 or 20 minutes for which he spoke. I suppose for the sake of opposition he had to make as good a case as he could in the circumstances when he knew in his heart that there was no case to be made. This Bill highlights the ineptitude of the past performance of the Fianna Fáil Party and the role they are now playing in the House is purely an attempt to whitewash their own past.

Mr. Wilson

The Deputy said that before.

Mr. F. O'Brien

And I am saying it again and if I have to say it again I shall say it. Fianna Fáil will be continually reminded of their past sins in this area when they took no action. Had they been in Government today, the situation would be that these mining companies would still have their 20 years tax-free holiday. We should examine the facts very carefully. It is always better if one can get something for nothing. If that is the argument, that is fine. This figure was set by reputable arbitrators. The Government did as any Government should do if they respect the competence of the arbitrators. They accepted the costings. When the overall figures are examined, what we are getting and what our equity will be in the mining industry, there is no argument whatsoever.

There was such opposition being mounted against this Bill that I thought there must be something in it that was not coming out. The Opposition have had their number of hours speaking against the Bill and they have said nothing to convince anybody. This is an excellent deal. It will give the State a real income direct from mining and a clawback from taxes. The net gain to the State, having regard to the amount of money the State is investing, is tremendous.

What we should be discussing and pushing now is not this particular deal but the further development of the industry as quickly as possible and the setting up of a smelter. It is important that as much as possible of the wealth from the mining industry should be retained within the country. One way of doing that is to get a smelter established as quickly as possible. It is important that a decision should be taken as quickly as possible on the siting of a smelter. Otherwise, various groups will set themselves up in opposition to a smelter on all sorts of grounds. Most of us realise that a smelter industry would be a dirty industry but we are a developing nation and must look at development as a whole. If there is prolonged delay in making these decisions, pressure groups will develop as in the case of the oil refinery, which was eventually turned down, possibly on good planning grounds — I am not going to dispute the reasons—but there was a tremendous lobby group against it. If we delay too long in getting people interested in a smelter, there will be this type of agitation, which in my view would not be warranted.

Great play has been made with regard to the investment of the money without planning approval being obtained for the Bula Mine. In any planning authority or board the national interest would be taken into account. The wealth that can accrue from the mine and the job potential must be taken into account in any planning decision. There would have to be compelling reasons for refusing permission. I have no doubt that permission would be granted and if it is granted for open cast mining, that will considerably reduce mining costs, making the ore from this particular mine reasonably cheap.

Mr. Wilson

It will raise a lot of dust.

Mr. F. O'Brien

I am not disputing that. This is an area that will have to be gone into. It happens elsewhere. I do not think that by burying our talents in the ground and leaving them there we can increase the gross national product. In order to progress we have to make certain sacrifices. I believe that in the national interest this will be done. Using modern technology a lot of pollution and dust can be curtailed. This should be remembered. We can learn from other areas. I say this also in regard to a smelter. If we have a smelter we can build up a very big metallurgical business which can contribute to exports and from which there can be a tremendous spin-off in the manufacturing side.

Mr. O'Malley

The Deputy has two minutes.

Mr. F. O'Brien

What does the Deputy mean?

Mr. O'Malley

The Deputy has only two minutes more to do. He is falling over the bench trying to manage it.

Mr. F. O'Brien

Indeed, I am not. Deputy O'Malley talked for two hours yesterday and said nothing.

Mr. O'Malley

There are a lot of people who do not agree with the Deputy. Sorry. I am only helping the Deputy to get over the two minutes. Let him repeat himself again.

Mr. F. O'Brien

Let us talk about what Deputy O'Malley said or did not say yesterday. The case he made, or the case he did not make, was rather pathetic. While his delivery may have been good and his phraseology and legal expertise may have helped him out, what he had to say did not reveal anything new as regards the mining industry or how it might be improved. He was critical of the deal, critical of the fact that all the facts were not made known to him. He stated that there would be no tax clawback on the £9.54 million as, of course, there will be and as he should have been aware. The Deputy did not suggest any alternative or say what he would have done if he had been in Government. His record in the past and the fact that he did not suggest any real alternative would indicate that the status quo would have been maintained. As Opposition spokesman for Industry and Commerce, he did not throw any new light on the mining industry or indicate the mining policy Fianna Fáil would have evolved if they were on this side of the House.

Debate adjourned.

Business suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.