Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 26 Mar 1941

Vol. 25 No. 8

Slievardagh Coalfield Development Bill, 1941—Second Stage.

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

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. MacEntee)

The purpose of this Bill is to set up machinery for the development of the Slievardagh coalfield. The Bill, when it becomes law, will authorise the Minister for Industry and Commerce to register a company under the Companies Acts, and will also authorise the Minister for Finance to advance out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas any sums needed by the company for the fulfilment of its objects. The Bill is the outcome of the Minerals Development Act which became law on 14th November last. That Act is an Act under which persons who are anxious to develop the mineral resources of the State may be given facilities for doing so. Its fundamental assumption is that the development of our mineral resources is primarily a matter for private enterprise. It contains provisions, however, which are designed to enable the State to work directly, or through lessees, any minerals which are not being developed efficiently by private enterprise. When these particular provisions of the Bill were under discussion in the Oireachtas, I indicated that it was likely that the first occasion upon which it would be necessary to use these powers was in connection with the development of the Slievardagh coalfield. The present Bill is the fulfilment of that expectation.

The Slievardagh coalfield lies between the towns of Thurles and Clonmel, and is some ten miles from Thurles. The southern end of the field is about three miles from Laffan's Bridge railway station, and the field is about six miles in length by two miles in width. The coal deposit is anthracite. Originally, the deposit consisted, we may presume, of eight seams, of which the five uppermost have been eroded. In the years between 1831 and 1891, outliers of these seams were worked by the Mining Company of Ireland, but for practical purposes we may take it that only the three lower seams contain any coal worth working to-day. Various estimates of the quantities of coal in these remaining seams have been made. They have ranged from 90,000,000 tons to a very much smaller figure. The latest and smallest estimate was made by a firm of consulting engineers who were appointed by the Government to examine the property and to report on the best way of developing it, and who in this connection carried out an extensive boring programme over the period from 1934 to 1937. As a result of their operations, the consultants expressed the opinion, first, that the greater portion of the anthracite left in the area lies in the second lowest seam, the seam which is called the Upper Glengoole seam; second, that the average thickness of the seam was about 18 inches; third, that the coal contained in this seam is of consistently high quality, and fourth, that it amounted to about 5,500,000 tons. Finally, they recommended that the commercial exploitation of the Slievardagh field should be undertaken.

Though the results of the consulting engineers' survey were made available for inspection in the Geological Survey, nobody with the requisite financial and technical resources came forward with acceptable proposals for the commercial development of the property, so that it was decided some months ago that the exploitation of the field would have to be undertaken by the State. The Minerals Development Act having been passed, as I have mentioned, in November last, the next step to give effect to this decision was the issue of an order under Section 14 of that Act and this order was made on the 6th February last. It vested in the Minister for Industry and Commerce, in fee simple, the minerals underlying the area set out in the order. The dispossessed owners of these minerals are entitled to compensation under the Act for the rights of which they have been deprived. If the amount of compensation cannot be settled by agreement, it will be settled by the Mining Board. While, under the Minerals Development Act, the Minister for Industry and Commerce has power to work State minerals, the Government think it advisable that a further direction should be obtained from the Oireachtas in support of their decision to develop the Slievardagh field. Hence, this Bill, under which it is proposed to develop the field through the agency of a company registered under the Companies Act, has been introduced. The mode of procedure will be briefly as follows: The coalbearing area acquired by the State under the recent order will be leased to the company on the terms on which the Government succeeds in finally acquiring it and the moneys needed by the company for the development of the mine will be provided out of voted moneys as repayable advances. At this stage, the total amount needed for the complete development of the property cannot be estimated with any degree of accuracy, but a capital of £100,000 should go a long way to open up the field and to prove its possibilities. Accordingly, the Bill makes provision for this sum. The sum I have mentioned will not be placed at the company's disposal immediately. It will be made available only as the company needs it. Estimates of the company's requirements will be submitted from time to time and provision will be made in the Vote for Industry and Commerce to enable the necessary advances to be made. These advances will carry interest and will be repaid as the Minister for Finance may determine. If results show that an extensive development of the property is justified, it will probably be found that capital of more than £100,000 will be needed. When this time comes, further proposals will be submitted to the Oireachtas which, on that occasion, will have the opportunity to review the progress which the company has made and its prospects.

I should like to emphasise that, when the company is established, it will be run as a commercial concern. The Minister for Finance, as principal shareholder in the company, will appoint the directors, in consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, but the manner in which the task to be entrusted to the company should be tackled will be left for settlement by the directors. The directors, like the directors of the Electricity Supply Board, will have in their own hands the general conduct of the company's affairs, and it will be for them to select and engage any staff that may be needed. In addition to establishing the colliery at Slievardagh, the services of the company will be required to carry out prospecting work in Slievardagh and other coal-fields. In this connection, the Minister for Industry and Commerce may, from time to time, call upon the company to carry out prospecting operations on other deposits. The expenditure which the company will necessarily incur in carrying out these instructions cannot, of course, be borne out of the company's own funds—that is to say, the funds with which it will be provided for the specific purpose of developing the Slievardagh deposit. Accordingly, provision is being made in this Bill to authorise the Minister for Finance to put at the disposal of the company in any year sums not exceeding £3,000, in all, to be expended by the company on any exploratory or prospecting work it may be asked to undertake by the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

I may summarise the justification which exists for embarking on the development of this deposit thus—(1) the market for anthracite is a growing one; (2) the demand for anthracite cannot be met by the output of the existing collieries and (3) the existence of large reserves of anthracite of good quality in the Slievardagh area appears to be well established. These facts in themselves do not, of course, make it certain that large returns in the way of dividends may be expected from any moneys invested in the establishment of a colliery in Slievardagh. All they do is provide sufficient justification for saying that there is a very good chance that the undertaking can be made self-supporting in a reasonably short time. If further justification than that is needed for embarking on this enterprise, it is to be found in the very serious difficulty experienced at the present time in importing anthracite and other kinds of fuel. I think that the details of the Bill contain nothing which is not self-explanatory.

Liam O Buachalla

Creidim go mbéidh fáilte roimh an mBille seo ag na Seanadóirí uilig. Is comhartha eile é ar a dháiríribh agus atá an Riaghaltas ar maoin aicionta na tíre a chur á saothrú. Béidh fáilte roimh an mBille, freisin, as ucht go gcialluigheann sé go bhfuil iarracht eile á dhéanamh le obair mhaith rathamhail a sholáthar do no daoine atá 'na call.

B'fhearr linn ar fad nach ar an Stát a thuitfeadh an cúram seo Gual-Láthair Shliabh Ard-Achadh a oibriú. Ba mhaith liom-sa go háithrid an comhlucht a bheith á chur ar bun ar an ngnáth-shlighe, 'sé sin le rádh, lucht gnotha iad féin, uatha féin, bheith a' dul i mbun na hoibre. 'Na dhaidh sin, caithfear admháil gur fiontar é seo a bhfuil roinnt riosga faoi leith a' baint leis, riosga níos mó ná bhaineas leis an ngnáth-chineál tionnsgail nó gnotha táirgeachta.

Is deacair a rádh cé mhéad guail atá ar an láthair seo. Is follasach nach go maith a réidhtigheadar le chéile na húghdair úd a sgrúdugh an taoibh seo den sgéal. Ach pér bith difrigheachta atá eatorra, is féidir a bheith cinnte go bhfuil riar mór guail ann. On méid atá nochtuighthe ag na hinnealltóirí ní gádh imnidhe bheith orainn 'na thaobh sin. Ar an gcuntar go ndéanfa idir stiúrthóirí agus oibridhthe a gcuid oibre go cúramach, cneasta, ba chóir go n-íocfadh an fiontar seo a bhealach féin agus nach mbéidh an Stát airgead ar bith thíos leis. Má bhíonn féin, má bhíonn cailleamhaint ann dá bhárr, b'fhéidir nach misde! Oireann sé, ar uaireannta, do náisiún dul faoi chostas ar mhaithe leis an bpobal. Má sgrúduaighthear an cheist 'na iomlán agus más é leas an phobail go h-iomlán a cúirtear san áireamh, ní mór a admháil nach fíor-chailleamhaintí iad na costais nó na híocaidheachta a thuiteas ar an Stát ó am go ham as ucht dó dul i mbannaí ar ghnothaí nach mbíonn lucht an airgid iad féin, uatha féin, sásta dul 'na mbun. Faoi láthair, ar aon nós, d'íocfadhmuid cuid mhaith agus bheith cinnte go mbéadh riar cothrom de ghual mhaith againn. 'Na dhiaidh sin agus uile, mar dubhairt mé cheana, eireócha leis an iarracht seo má fhághann sé cothrom na féinne.

Marach an míostaid atá buailte ar an saoghal, is ar éigin a bhéadh an Bille seo os ar gcomhair go foill ar aon nós. "Is olc an ghaoth nach séideann maith do dhuine eicínt," adeirtear agus, le congnamh Dé, tiocfaidh athruighthe ar aghaidh sa tír seo feasta a rachas go mór do leas an phobail, athruighthe nach dtiocfadh ar aghaidh marach muid a bheith i sáinn mar támuid faoi láthair. Tá gnothaí eile ann a d'fhéadhfaí a chur ar aghaidh freisin agus tá súil agam go sgrúdóchaidh an tAire gan mhoill iad, agus ní hí an charraig i gContae an Chláir an ceann is lugha tábacht díobhtha.

Tá súil agam nach fada go mbí an deis againn bheith a' traoslú don Aire aris as ucht Billí le h-aghaidh sgéimeanna ionmholta eile do thabhairt isteach.

Tugaimís go léir ar mbeannacht don Bhille seo agus go n-eirighidh go gheal leis an Aire agus leis na daoine a bhéas i mbun na hoibre.

Mr. Douglas

I have always felt that there was great justification for the risk, if there be a risk, in using State money for the development of the natural resources of the country. Whether State money should or should not be given for the assistance of industries which have to depend, to a certain extent at any rate, on outside resources, there can be very little argument against the principle of using the money of the State for the purpose of developing the actual resources which we have here. I do not know sufficient about the actual circumstances of Slievardagh to express an opinion, but I am quite prepared to accept the statement made by the Minister, and I believe that this is a time when there should be a fair chance of success, probably a greater chance of success than some years ago. No one, of course, can tell whether the price of fuel will remain high after the emergency has passed or whether it will not; but I am quite satisfied that it is worth taking any element of risk there is. Even if the risk is greater than I gather Senator O Buachalla thinks it is, I still think, having regard to the absolute necessity of providing employment at this time, that the Government are fully justified in their action. To that extent I undoubtedly agree with the principle of the Bill. I am of the opinion that much would depend on the direction. If you get a competent board of men of proved business experience—and you cannot experiment more than is unavoidable in that respect—there will be every chance that this industry will be satisfactorily developed.

I gather that Senator O Buachalla would like this to be in private hands, but I do not think that is practicable politics at present. I do not agree with him to this extent, that our aim ought to be that industries of this kind may at some time become ordinary public companies owned by private individuals. My criticism of this Bill is that I think it is very badly designed, if that in any sense be the object. In the first place, the share capital is £100, and it shall not be lawful for the company to increase or reduce the capital. To my mind that is ridiculous. It is not generally carried to that extreme, but it is the kind of mistake that is not infrequently made here—that the capital of a company is far too small for its proper development and that it is thought possible to carry on a company satisfactorily with a little capital and huge borrowings which are liable to be repaid more or less at call. Admittedly the State cannot recall the money; but on the assumption that £100,000, which is the figure mentioned in the Bill, may turn out to be more or less the sum of money required, you have a provision that even in the early stages compound interest is to be paid. If you look at this from the point of view of a private company, you would never dream of starting with a tiny capital and certainly you would not land yourself in for a huge sum of money at compound interest. I have a sort of suspicion that it was the Department of Finance which drafted this Bill rather than the Minister, or that the tradition which the Minister carried down with him unduly influenced him. It seems to me that there is this danger.

I am not going to try to amend the Bill in detail; in fact I am not going to try to amend it at all; but I put this strongly to the Minister for consideration with regard to future enterprises. A certain amount of borrowing is inevitable in most satisfactorily and properly managed businesses, but the borrowing should not be of a permanent character; it should be borrowing which is required for temporary purposes and which can be reduced. It is perfectly obvious to me that a company that has £100 capital and that cannot increase or reduce it—it could not very well reduce it—can never hope to repay that. Therefore, it seems to me that this can never be a company, in the form in which it is designed in this Bill, which can be sold to the public on the market at some later date. I think that would be the proper aim and that it is a great pity the Government have adopted this system in what otherwise is to me a very wise step and, at any rate, a risk very well worth taking.

Sir John Keane

I rather agree with the criticism offered by Senator Douglas with regard to the capital structure. It seems rather ridiculous to start a productive company like this, which obviously will require large sums of money—far more than the Minister mentioned, I suggest; far more than £100,000—with a nominal capital. I know that some of these recent emergency companies for buying grain, timber and coal, have been started with a nominal capital, but they were only buying for distribution to existing agencies and were in a totally different position from this company now proposed. They were in no way productive concerns.

I am speaking subject to correction, but I think this is the first time since the Electricity Supply Board was established for the Government to ask Parliament for powers to start a productive company. Perhaps the alcohol factories were another, but still this one, I think, can be looked at independently of those and on its merits. I put myself here in the position of a shareholder authorising the State to use public moneys for an industrial enterprise. I go further and say that, if I were investing my own money, I should certainly wish to know far more about the prospects than the Minister told us. I should certainly expect to see a prospectus, an estimate of the cost of production, and something about the manner in which this product would get to the market. I should also expect to have an estimate of the selling price, which I would compare with the present prices and with the normal prices of similar products. We have had none of that information and I take it that the Minister has that information. If he has it, I think we have a right to say that it should have been published as an addendum to this Bill. After all, we have in that connection the analogy of the Electricity Supply Board. In that case, very voluminous reports were given from experts as to the prospects. Here we are giving the Government practically a blank cheque to embark on an undoubtedly speculative enterprise.

I am not saying that, in the present emergency, a measure of this kind is not justified, but I endorse it as an emergency enterprise, and I have very grave doubts that it will continue, or ever become an economic, dividend or profit-earning enterprise, when normal conditions are restored. That is one matter we should have in mind. At the present high inflated prices, it may be possible to show a profit on this enterprise; but what will the position be when the emergency passes and, presumably, overseas supplies of anthracite come to this country? Will we continue this company in existence, whatever the cost and, in that case, who is to supply the difference between the possibly inflated high cost of the home product and the lesser cost of the imported product? Will that be done by means of a tariff on the imported product or by means of a subsidy to the company or by loss to the company which has to be borne by the State? All these are questions which I hope the Minister has considered and to which I hope he will have a reply. I would like the Minister to have justified this primarily as a commercial enterprise, with the possibility—and not a very high possibility—of success as an economic enterprise. I would like him to have said that if, after all, we find we cannot market this product otherwise than at high cost to the consumer, with a high tariff, or by cost to the taxpayer through a subsidy to meet the loss, then we should seriously consider cutting our losses altogether and abandoning the venture.

I happen to know a little about this coalfield, as I was interested in the syndicate which was set on foot some ten years ago to develop it as a commercial proposition. It never came to anything, though I cannot remember the reasons for that. As it was put before me then, it was distinctly a speculative enterprise, and if it was speculative then there is very little doubt that it is speculative now. I think we have a right to ask the Minister to give us some figures as to what experts say regarding the cost of production and what, at present rates, the product will cost on the market. We also ought to know how it is intended to transport it. In the enterprise in which I was asked to interest myself some years ago, there was a proposition to build a railway line from the field to, I think, Thurles Station. I suppose that at the present time the transport would be by road. We have a right to such information, to something equivalent to a commercial prospectus, as we are trustees of the State investing money in the same position as if we were individual shareholders.

Mr. Fitzgerald

The Minister gave three reasons to justify this Bill, the third of which had, I think, some legitimacy. That was the difficulty in importing coal or anthracite at the present moment. Senators Douglas and Keane took certain aspects of the drafting of this Bill rather unnecessarily seriously. I presume that, on account of the present emergency and the difficulty and the uncertainty as to the supplies which will be available, the Government has decided that it is worth while using a certain amount of money to raise a certain amount of coal in this district. It is a pity that this Bill had to be drafted in such a way as to suggest that the project is what one might call a sound economic proposition. I am supporting the Bill, but not with any hope that it will become a sound economic proposition.

The Minister said that he had been unable to get any private company to take the matter over. He also told us that the basic principle in this Bill was the recognition that such works as this were more suitable and appropriate to private enterprise than to Government enterprise. I entirely agree that this is the sort of thing suitable for private enterprise and that it should be so, but I do not think that the Bill makes it other than a governmental eleemosynary proposal. Coal is needed in the country and Senator O Buachalla has said, I understand, that there were differences of opinion amongst the engineers as to the amount of coal there.

I judge from the Minister's statement that every time there was an expert survey of the coal the later survey always estimated rather less than the previous one. The Minister gave the present estimate at 5,500,000 tons. At the moment, I will not distinguish between anthracite coal and softer coal, but take the coal consumption of this country. I should say that 5,500,000 tons does not represent the amount used in a very long period. There are 3,500,000 people in the country and most houses require definitely more than a ton per year. More through curiosity than anything else, I would like to know the cost of the equivalent amount of coal to this 5,500,000 tons, if it had been bought before the war—the cost including storage and compound interest on the capital outlay to the time of its consumption. I do not expect the Minister to give any exact opinion as to what the cost per ton, delivered in any sort of central area, will be. I judge that the Government's idea is that, at the present moment, when we look into a future—either proximate or remote— and are unable to form any opinion as to what the conditions will be, it is worth while putting up £100,000 or some such sum for this purpose. The supposition is that the probable losses involved in this will not be great, because, as far as one can see, the cost of everything will go up rather than down and, therefore, the cost of obtaining imported coal in the future will presumably be mounting all the time and might conceivably reach a point which will equal the cost of production of coal in this place.

It does rather distress me when I hear people talking of a Bill like this as though it were expected to be a sound financial or economic proposition. I think the people who refused to undertake this as a private enterprise were quite wise in doing so, and I think the Minister's speech was a little misleading when he talks about £100,000 being repayable, and so on. Personally, I do not think the Minister or the Government or any of us has any reason to believe that that £100,000, or whatever sum is advanced, is going to be paid back by the company. Senator Douglas says that usually a company having to borrow in excess of its initial capital does not contemplate paying compound interest. I do not pretend to be an expert in these matters, but the way I look at the situation is that if an ordinary sound, commercial company goes into a bank to borrow money and gets the money, it pays back annually at least the amount of interest, if not part of a sinking fund. I have in mind that this £100,000 or £X will be advanced to this company, and at the end of a year the company will be debited with such amount of interest on that sum and that the interest will not be paid. Consequently, after the second year the nominal indebtedness of the company to the Government will be the original capital plus one year's interest and, at the end of the next year, the indebtedness of the company will be the original capital plus two years' interest, and so on. If anybody is going to vote for this Bill on the assumption that out of the taxpayers' pockets we are going to advance £100,000 or something, over a period and get that money back, I think he is living in rather a fool's paradise. It would be advisable if we could have some idea of the cost per ton produced and delivered at some central distributing station. That would be helpful, but I think the Minister might justifiably hesitate to give that, for two reasons: (1) because he is not able to do it, and (2) because, if he did it, it would be rather shocking to people to find how much per ton the coal is going to cost. Therefore, I regard £100,000, or whatever it may be, as a grant from the Government to assist this work, and I presume, once the £100,000 is gone, the taxpayer is not likely to see it again.

Senator Keane's comparison with the Shannon scheme was, to my mind, quite ill-judged. The Shannon proposal had to stand in normal circumstances on its own soundness. First of all, it was a monopoly. I think I have said here very often that I object to too much Government "butting-in" in productive enterprises but it is quite certain that a commodity of what you might call general utility such as electricity is almost more appropriately a Government matter than a matter of private enterprise and private competition. But in that case the proposal was—and there was a most careful estimate beforehand of costing, as far as it could be done—that the company would sell electricity at a price which after a certain number of years would pay the whole cost of production, would pay for reserve fund against wear and tear and interest and sinking fund in relation to the money advanced by the Government. I do not think that has been quite fulfilled but anyway that was the condition in which it had to be considered. Any such proposal with regard to this Bill would, I think, be quite ridiculous. Personally, I would very definitely vote against this Bill were the world situation normal at the moment because we must regard the condition of war as abnormal even though wars seem to happen very often.

This scheme has certain advantages. There are only 5,500,000 tons there. Therefore, I presume, the company's life and its operations are limited. One can almost see the date on which the whole thing closes down. I think that is the wisest way to view it. The 5,500,000 tons will be an addition to our fuel when we are likely to suffer from the real absence of fuel even more than from the high price of fuel. There are times when you will pay an exorbitant price for a certain commodity because it is vitally necessary to you and you cannot get it except at that high price. I think that condition applies here. I think also it might be a consideration to be taken against the uneconomic nature of the proposal that it will be providing certain work in the district. I always detest that phrase about providing employment. A man is employed on a job because it is necessary to work in order to produce things that are useful and I do strongly object in the normal way to talk about providing employment. Nobody really wants employment if the commodity to be made could be got without working. Man is naturally a lazy animal.

Mr. M. Hayes

Query.

Mr. Douglas

Not in every case.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I think he is.

Mr. Hayes

No.

Mr. Fitzgerald

The whole idea of virtue seems to go wrong. We talk about the virtuous effort. It is almost certain for virtue that it requires an effort, and labour I regard as an effort. A man might for the sake of exercise and to improve some physical organ spend his time digging a hole and filling it up again, but he would feel that his human nature was being outraged somewhat in being engaged on such a useless task. This talk about providing employment, to my mind, is having a very bad effect upon the country. Everybody's idea is to give the people some excuse for drawing money. The whole purpose of work is to produce something useful. In this case I think that probably the degree of output in labour or in finance will be more than the return in the useful commodity, coal, because I have no doubt that under ordinary circumstances the coal could be bought cheaper. When we are told there is a vein of coal, roughly about 18 inches—in diameter, I think——

Mr. MacEntee

Eighteen inches in thickness.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Imagining it a circular seam, we will call it diameter. I regard this as a proposal produced solely for the reason that there is a war on at the present moment, that our supplies of coal imported are reduced, and that the supplies to be imported in the future are such that they cannot be guaranteed. Under those circumstances, what would have been, palpably, an uneconomic proposition a year or two ago, has now a certain something to recommend it. I should like to know what would be a fixed sum of money that would be put out on this, and also what the Minister calculates, roughly, the cost of production per ton of coal will be, and we shall then know to what extent we are subsidising this production.

I know that it is grand and patriotic to assume that there is vast, undiscovered wealth under the soil of Ireland. Personally, I think that the idea that patriotism requires such props is a distortion of patriotism. We all know that we have certain resources here, but whether we look upon these things from a two-dimensional or three-dimensional standpoint, our patriotism should not require such props. Senator O Buachalla spoke in Irish, as he generally does, but I do not allow myself to be blinded by his gentle heart which sees and paints everything in this country in such glowing terms. I shall vote for this as an emergency proposition which, in a year or two, if the war ends, it might probably be better to close down. It is possible that I am painting the blackest side only, but I am going to vote for the measure as, what I might call, a subsidy to help the people of this country, who require fuel and find it difficult to get it, to be supplied with fuel. To dress it up, however, as a sort of big industrial proposition for the development of our unexploited resources is, to my mind, rather silly, on the statement made by the Minister. It might be that somebody might dig up his garden and find a gold mine, and in this case it may be that, having gone below these three lower seams, they might find vast quantities of coal, but you do not base a commercial proposition on such an assumption as that. As I say, I propose to vote for this as an emergency measure, which might have been unnecessary if certain arrangements had been made before the war began, and I propose voting for it as subsidising the production of fuel in this country out of the public purse, but not otherwise.

Mr. Goulding

I do not suppose that anybody considers this as a commercial proposition at all. Any one of us who has any experience at all of mining in this country knows that any sort of mining in Ireland is speculative. It could not be called a commercial proposition at all.

Mr. Douglas

A slow-motion commercial proposition?

Mr. Fitzgerald

I do not regard this as speculative.

Mr. Goulding

When speaking of these things, it must be remembered that we are speaking of them in terms of normal times, but these times are not normal. I agree with Senator Fitzgerald that this work is commercial to the extent that it will provide us with fuel that is urgently needed, and also with employment which is urgently needed at the moment. With regard to the sum of £100,000 that is given here as the capital of the company, I am of opinion that it will not be sufficient at all, and that it may be necessary for the company to call on the Oireachtas again for a further grant, and that grant will have to be given. Perhaps we do not realise that there is a growing demand for this type of fuel in this country and that that demand is going to be greater as the years pass. The modern type of stove that is beginning to come into use in this country is adapted purely to the use of anthracite, and I believe that the demand for anthracite in this country, in the future, will be fourfold what it is now. So that, perhaps, after all—although we may not consider it a commercial proposition at the moment—this may turn out to be a better business undertaking than we now think it is. Apart from the necessity for providing fuel at the present moment, I think we are wise in taking a chance, and as I say, perhaps this may turn out a better proposition than we can see at the moment. On the whole, I believe it is worthy of support, and I doubt if any member of the Oireachtas would be found to vote against it.

Professor Magennis

I find that some members of this august Assembly are unacquainted with the Constitution of the country—even with such portions of it as are repetitions of the earlier Constitution. It happens, by chance, that I have with me a copy of the Constitution and, with your permission, Sir, I shall quote Article 10, which is as follows:—

"1. All natural resources, including the air and all forms of potential energy, within the jurisdiction of the Parliament and Government established by this Constitution and all royalties and franchises within that jurisdiction belong to the State subject to all estates and interests therein for the time being lawfully vested in any person or body.

"2. All land and all mines, minerals and waters which belonged to Saorstát Eireann immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution belong to the State...."

And so on. Then, Section 3 of that Article goes on to say that provision may be made by law for the management of the property which belongs to the State by virtue of this Article; and Section 4 says:—

"Provision may also be made by law for the management of land, mines, minerals and waters acquired by the State after the coming into operation of this Constitution and for the control of the alienation, whether temporary or permanent, of the land, mines, minerals and waters so acquired."

Consequently, it is already indicated that all sources of potential energy are to be operated in the interest of the entire body of citizens because, in fact, these sources are their property. Senator Sir John Keane's speech was, as usual, informative, and it was his speech that recalled the Constitution to me. It is quite clear from what he said that the doctrines put forward by my friend, Senator Douglas, have no application here. He told us that he himself was concerned in a syndicate whose intention it was to exploit the mine in question, but that nothing came of it.

Mr. Douglas

Did I say that?

Professor Magennis

I am speaking of Senator Sir John Keane.

Mr. Douglas

I thought you said "Senator Douglas" afterwards?

Professor Magennis

Yes. Well, if the Senator likes, I shall repeat my remarks. I stated that Senator Sir John Keane had said that he was concerned in a syndicate and that nothing came of it. The Minister told us that there were other efforts in the way of private enterprise. Now, where Senator Douglas comes in is that he expressed a doctrine in which I have profound belief, namely that the State should not interfere where private enterprise is forthcoming, and where private enterprise can be clearly adjudged to be more appropriate and effective. A point of reservation to that doctrine which became very important in recent years in the neighbouring State of Great Britain, is that where the development of potential energy from national resources is necessary in the national interest its exploitation should not be left under the control of purely private enterprise. So that while with Senator Douglas I proclaim myself an advocate of the doctrine of the paramount value of private enterprise, I admit where a mine or some other source of national wealth is to be exploited, that that is something that it is not advisable to leave under private control, private management or even private ownership.

Furthermore, I agree with Senator Sir John Keane in drawing a parallel between the Shannon scheme and this scheme, because the Shannon scheme was a great, almost an audaciously great, undertaking on the part of a little State at the outset of its functioning. It was an effort, first of all, to develop national resources and, in doing so, to preclude the necessity of exporting Irish capital for the purchase of coal mined in Great Britain. I remember well there was—perhaps not within the memory of most of my colleagues here—an inquiry at one time into the water power resources of Ireland and then another and then another. In comparatively recent times, there was an inquiry into the coal and mineral resources of Ireland, and there were the usual reports. Almost invariably, the report on water power was that the Irish rivers, like the Irish people, were too damn lazy— that the Irish rivers were too lazy to flow into the sea and that, therefore, they had no potential energy. A German company at length discovered how unreliable were these reports. The reports in regard to coal mining belonged to the same unfavourable class. The people were told that it was not worth opening up shafts to work them, that they were not remunerative. Accompanying one of these reports, I remember, there was a disquisition by the late Lord Justice O'Connor emphasising and endorsing these findings and stating that the deposit of coal was not of sufficient depth to make the thing worth while. Notwithstanding these melancholy and depressing reports with regard to water power, the Shannon scheme was entered upon and something like £10,000,000 of the people's money was risked in that scheme. All of us who have any connection with it are quite proud of the venture and of having had a share in it.

I do not see why, therefore, we should be discouraged with regard to this mining scheme, above all, in circumstances like the present. The object in view in the exploitation of water power for electrical energy was amongst other things to spare us the necessity of importing £6,000,000 worth of English coal. Now we are in the position that we still need coal and we are not able to get it. The possibilities of getting it are diminishing daily. Therefore it becomes a vital necessity to try at all costs—in saying "at all costs," I am using the cliché deliberately; these are the correct words—it becomes necessary at all costs to get whatever coal our land will yield us in such a crisis as that with which we are now confronted. This is not to be judged by ordinary standards. It is not to be viewed as we might view something in the nature of a commercial undertaking entered upon for private profit. It is a question of saving the country in an emergency and we should not count the cost.

Mr. E. Lynch

The Minister I think is to be congratulated on the introduction of this Bill. The debate to which it has given rise has unquestionably been of very great interest. The question whether industry in this country at the present time should be developed by the State or by private agency and private methods is one that could be debated at great length. It was natural to hear Senator Sir John Keane urge that this enterprise should be closed down after the emergency has passed.

Sir John Keane

I do not think that is quite an accurate representation of what I said. I suggested that if it cannot be run as an economic proposition we should consider closing it down.

Mr. Lynch

I think the Senator had a great many doubts as to the possibility of it being a financial success. The properties referred to in this Bill are national properties, and the Government, as the custodian of the interests of the people in the State, is in my opinion the proper authority to develop these resources. It seems that at the present time the shoulders of private enterprise are entirely too slender to carry the weight of responsibility for the development of such resources as coal deposits, which is so vitally necessary at the present time. The question whether it is an economic proposition has to be examined in the light of the new circumstances, and in these circumstances the vital needs of the nation come foremost. We have seen for quite a considerable time private enterprise breaking down in matters of this character. We have seen in early days that even armies that were provided by private enterprise had to give way to the provision of armies by the State. We have seen the carrying of letters by private enterprise giving way to the carrying of letters under public control, and so on. Over a long period we find private enterprise unable to carry on these responsibilities and the State being compelled to step in and provide such services for the community. The emergency which has been debated in this House, and at public meetings outside quite recently, seems to indicate that there is greater necessity to-day for the State to take on these responsibilities. Even when the emergency has passed, I hope this developing function of the State will continue, because that is a sounder economic proposition for the community generally than the carrying on of industries by the haphazard method of private enterprise.

We debated the production of wheat recently and nobody questioned whether the production of wheat for the maintenance of our people in the near future was economic or uneconomic. I am quite sure that if we were able to secure transport facilities we could buy wheat in the world market much cheaper than we could grow it here; in other words, that the purchase of foreign, wheat would be more economic than the production of home-grown wheat, but, for a considerable time, the policy of this Government and of its predecessor has been to develop the wheat-growing resources at home.

Sir John Keane

Not its predecessor.

Mr. Lynch

One predecessor. You will find that that economic policy in regard to wheat is true also of Continental countries. Therefore, if it is a sound economic proposition for France and other Continental countries, and even Great Britain, to grow wheat, surely it is a sound economic policy here. If it is a sound economic policy to grow wheat and to develop the beet sugar industry and other industries under the aegis of the State, surely it is equally a sound economic proposition to produce coal at the present time, and possibly in times of peace. One could go on for a considerable time debating the relative merits, as to whether industries and the general economic functions of the community should be carried on by the State or left to the haphazard higgledy-piggledy methods of private employment, but that heed not concern us now.

I should like to deal with the nature of the coal to be produced at Slievardagh. I understand that anthracite has a peculiar characteristic as a combustible fuel and I should like to have some information as to whether it is suitable and satisfactory for ordinary domestic purposes. The reason for this Bill, I understand is to produce coal for general domestic purposes, and, if I am correctly informed about the nature of this coal, I wish to know whether the Minister has considered the necessity of providing apparatus for having it consumed for the ordinary domestic purposes for which the softer bituminous coal is used. If some thought has not been given to that, it is questionable if this coal will be suitable for domestic purposes. Perhaps the technical advisers of the Minister have advised him and, if so, I should like to hear what were their views.

I wish to refer the Minister also to a new development that, I understand, has taken place with regard to producer gas plants for motor transport vehicles. I am informed that certain satisfactory experiments have been made with the use of anthracite coal for ordinary motor cars, and if that is so, I should like to hear if the Government gave any assistance to the people who are producing the apparatus to be attached to cars for the purpose of supplementing petrol allowances. If the producer gas plant used in cars has proved satisfactory, that is another method of employing the coal to be produced at Slievardagh.

I notice that the Bill does not provide for the payment of fair wages or for the observance of decent conditions of employment in the mine. It has generally been the practice of the Government in Bills of this character to insert a clause stating that fair wages should be paid and decent conditions of employment observed. It is difficult to understand why the precedent contained in similar Bills has been omitted in this case. The Bill would be improved by the insertion of a clause along those lines. With regard to the board of directors to be set up by the Minister to control this and similar enterprises it has been significantly noted that these boards have been exclusively appointed from those representing capital. There is another and a very important side, namely the labour side. As the labour content in industry plays an important part, and has a vital human interest in industry, it should have representatives on such boards as are set up from time to time.

Mr. M. Hayes

I have some temerity in interfering in this debate but I have one or two points to make concerning the running of this enterprise and also a difficulty when the Bill begins to work. It would be pleasant to follow Senator Fitzgerald and others into the higher realms of a discussion with regard to private and public enterprise, but the position now, I take it, is that we need a great deal of coal, that we cannot get it, but that here in this particular place there is actual evidence of the presence of a considerable amount of coal, and therefore, a risk is going to be taken to work it. I think that is sound policy and that it ought to be supported. But I do not think there is any analogy between what the Minister proposes to do in this Bill and what was done about the Shannon. In the case of the Shannon scheme a considerable amount of expert advice of a very definite nature, and very detailed information, was got, but in the nature of the case that has not been possible here. I might say also with regard to the Constitution that in Article 10 of the Constitution which Senator Magennis read, he did not continue to Clause 3 which reads:

"Provision may be made by law for the management of the property which belongs to Eire by virtue of this Article and for the control of the alienation, whether temporary or permanent, of that property."

The present Constitution, therefore, makes provision for the permanent alienation of State property. The other Constitution, being more under the influence of the Labour Party, who were apparently, a more powerful Party in 1932 than they turned out to be in 1937, provided that property belonging to the State could not be alienated for a period of more than 99 years, so that from the point of view of Senator Lynch, we are going backwards. On that I do not undertake to give my own view at the moment.

It is true to say that there is coal in this particular area. I happen to have some touch with it. The experts differ as to how much coal is there. The Minister says that the estimates vary considerably—between 90,000,000 tons and 5,000,000 tons. But since the civil war, roughly speaking during the last 20 years, the people of Tipperary have actually been working this mine as, I think, the Minister is aware. They have actually been digging out coal, carting it away and selling it. What Senator Fitzgerald said, that man is naturally a lazy animal, is not quite true of the people in this neighbourhood. They have actually been drawing this coal, and treating this particular coal mine much as people treat a bog except that they take the coal and sell it. I do not know the number of people involved, but I am told that between 60 and 70 people have, without a shred of legal title, been doing this, and, as a matter of fact, have been giving a certain amount of satisfaction in the neighbourhood.

One wonders what is going to happen to these people now. Will the situation be this: that they will be put out of what has become to them pretty fair employment as soon as this Bill is passed? This work gave employment for men, horses and carts. Will the people who have been purchasing the coal find that, when the coal mine comes to be worked, they cannot get coal at all, whereas before the coal mine was officially worked they could get pretty good coal at a reasonable price? That is a point on which the Minister might perhaps give the House some information. I know it would be difficult to do anything about it by way of amendment, and I would not attempt to do so.

I understand also that there are some people in the neighbourhood who have the fear—there is a good deal of flat land in the district—that, when the shafts come to be worked and when the old shafts come to be worked into, there may be a certain amount of flooding of the lands. I presume, if that takes place, there is some scheme whereby the farmers concerned can get compensation.

Now, with regard to the working of the Bill you get—it is natural at the moment—what is really a Stats enterprise. You get a peculiar kind of tying up which is characteristic of all such enterprises. For example, the Minister for Finance appoints the directors, after consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Then, apparently, the Minister for Industry and Commerce does certain things after consultation with the Minister for Finance, so that it is like the pea and the thimble: it is rather difficult to know at a particular moment whether you are dealing with the Minister for Finance, after consulting the Minister for Industry and Commerce, or with the Minister for Industry and Commerce who has left the room for a moment to consult the Minister for Finance.

Mr. Douglas

A kind of turn about.

Mr. M. Hayes

Yes, but you will probably find one and the same person writing the same kind of official English, or official Irish, as the case may require. With regard to the composition of the board, Senator Lynch thinks these boards have been composed, exclusively of capitalists.

Mr. Lynch

I never used the word.

Mr. M. Hayes

I think the Senator said, "the representatives of capital."

Leas-Chathaoirleach

He did.

Mr. M. Hayes

This is the first time that I have ever heard the representatives of Fianna Fáil regarded as being the representatives of capital. The boards set up by this Government have consisted of civil servants and representatives of Fianna Fáil. Whether they are representatives of capital as well, I am not quite clear. Sometimes they are and sometimes they are not. Some of them, while they succeed in representing capital, profess an extreme sympathy with the poor. However, I would like to say to the Minister that, from his point of view as Minister for Industry and Commerce—and as this is the first time he has come along with a proposal of this kind—he should try to insist on the Minister for Finance appointing to the board people on their merits. I should also like to see the Minister inserting in the Bill, in Committee, an amendment to the effect that no member of the Dáil or Seanad could be a member of this particular board of directors. I think a provision of that kind applies to the Shannon Board, and, in all our circumstances, it is, I think, a very sound rule. There must be plenty of intelligent people who are not members of the Dáil or Seanad who could run this industry satisfactorily. I want, in particular, to put to the Minister: that when choosing the directors of the company he should make provision to have them as independent as in the circumstances, they can be, by appointing them for a period of, say, three years.

With regard to the other general question, as to whether this should be a private or a public enterprise, I think there can be no doubt whatever that, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves at the moment, if private enterprise is not available to do this particular job, then it must be done by the State. Whether the method the Minister has adopted in the Bill is the best method for the State to adopt has been disputed by Senators like Senator Douglas, who have considerable business experience. I think it is very much open to debate, but, in the meantime, as much as possible should be done to get directors who know their job and who are not being rewarded for a particular service.

Professor Magennis

On a point of explanation. Senator Hayes, no doubt by inadvertence, quoted me as saying that the Irish people are lazy.

Mr. M. Hayes

No, I did not.

Professor Magennis

I was simply quoting from a report prepared during the period of the British régime here.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

I am afraid Senator Magennis misheard what Senator Hayes said.

Mr. M. Hayes

The point I made was this: that Senator Fitzgerald's remark, that man is naturally a lazy animal, did not apply to the men in this part of Tipperary who, during the last 20 years, have been working this coal mine—outside the law.

Mr. Parkinson

I desire to congratulate the Minister on the introduction of this Bill. If the object aimed at by it proves to be a success then nothing that has been done for a very long time will be received with as much gratitude by the labouring people and artisans of the country. Because of the present economic situation, the production of anthracite coal in this country is a matter of first-class importance. I desire to inform Senator Lynch that for a period of about 15 years I had experience in the mining of anthracite coal. Apart from mining engineers, or other people who claim to be experts in coal mining, I think I can claim to know as much about the mining of anthracite coal as an ordinary civilian. I have not seen the analysis of the Slievardagh coalfield, but if it is nearly as good as the analysis of the Leinster coalfield, that would go to show it was as good as the anthracite coal to be found either in England or in America. The analysis of the Leinster coalfield is something like this: 98 per cent. of carbon, 2 per cent. of ash, and 5 per cent. of sulphur. I hope this production of anthracite coal will lead the Minister and his advisers to experiment in finding the best and the cheapest method of burning it. What I have in mind is that some effort should be made to get a boiler of the same construction as the Esse or Aga cooker. I would like to see a factory established in Wexford for its manufacture, and that from now on every new house in this country would be equipped with one of those ranges before the people are allowed into it. In that way, the cooking and heating in a labourer's house could be done for 12 months on a ton of coal.

Sir John Keane

They give no heat.

Mr. Parkinson

Senator Sir John Keane thinks they give no heat. I do not say they give as much heat as an Aga cooker, but they can be adapted to heat water in the house when they are not being used for cooking, so that the house would have its own small unit of central heating. We could use up our own coal and save the country the cost of importing bituminous coal. The calorific value of anthracite coal is in the neighbourhood of 13,000 thermal units, and, of ordinary bituminous coal, is about 9,000, so you have nearly 40 per cent. more heat from the anthracite coal. In many cities in America a train running on bituminous coal has to change its engine and put on an anthracite equipped engine to pull the train into the city so as to avoid the smoke. That shows that anthracite coal could be used for the purpose of railway propulsion, and that even if we were cut off from the whole of the English supply of coal we could still carry on our transport. For nearly 50 years, producer gas plant running on anthracite coal has been in operation, and it is quite an accepted proposition to-day that lorries and motor cars could, in the absence of petrol, be equipped and run on anthracite coal.

Mr. Quirke

In the discussion on this measure I think it was Senator Fitzgerald who said that we should not be influenced by sentiment. I began to think about the various things which influenced me in supporting this Bill, and I am quite prepared to say that sentiment played not a very small part in it. Now, I make no apology at all for that statement, and I believe that it is only by men with sentiment, coupled with commonsense, energy and ability, that some of the great mines of the American continent and other places were developed successfully. I think it is an important thing that the people who carry out any such proposal as the one before us in this Bill should be influenced to a certain extent by sentiment. Perhaps my association with the people of that part of the district is in some way responsible for my attitude in that respect. I was brought up in the district. I lived in the house of the miners, and I saw the coal being developed, as Senator Hayes pointed out a few minutes ago. As far as the people down there are concerned—perhaps their optimism was infectious—they never had any doubt whatever about the presence of coal in huge quantities in the area. I do not pose as an expert on coal mining, but I do say that if, we could only get as much commonsense into the various schemes which are being developed as there is of sentiment, if you like to call it sentiment, in the people of that part of the country, we would be in a different position to-day. I have a picture in my mind of the local people there a good many years ago—when I say the local people I mean the people from a radius of nine or ten miles—at a meeting under the chairmanship of the local parish priest, Father John Walsh. They came together there in a little house, and they were fully determined that they would keep working and keep nagging at whatever Government might come in—I do not think this Government was in power at the time— until they would eventually see the mines developed. Call it sentiment if you like, but for their sakes I am glad that the mines are eventually to be developed. While, as I say, I am no expert whatever on coal mining, I believe and I definitely hope that the venture will be a success.

As to the economics of the proposition, we have had a couple of speakers dealing with that, and the line they took was that a different situation would exist if and when the present hostilities ceased. Well, that is a reasonable line to take, I suppose, but after all is there any necessity to be alarmed? Is there any reason why we should think that, even if the war finished to-morrow, this little colliery could not continue to operate, and operate successfully and economically for that matter? There is no necessity at all to compare the price of imported coal now or previous to the opening of hostilities, or previous to the present difficulties in shipping, if you like, with the price of the possible production from this mine which we are now discussing. We have only to go across to the other side of the hill to Castlecomer, and we see there a first-class mine in very good working order supplying not alone the requirements of the locality, but outside districts as well. If we examine the situation, we find also that prior to the present jump in coal prices due to shipping difficulties that little mine continued to operate over a very long number of years, and continued to produce—I am not quite sure of the figure—somewhere between 130,000 and 150,000 tons of anthracite per year. As far as that is concerned, I do not believe there is any need at all for worry. I believe that if the mine can be successfully developed a market will be available for the coal, if not within easy reach of the mine, then very definitely in any of our towns or cities. At the present time, as the Minister has pointed out, there is an increasing market for anthracite. As we go along, and the people find out, as they are at present finding out, that anthracite cookers, ranges and stoves are in fact very efficient and very successful, I believe we will have an increasing market, and that, regardless of what the position may be in connection with shipping in the future, there will always be a market for this particular product.

With regard to the position of the people who are already—as somebody in the Dáil described it—poaching those mines, I definitely have the greatest interest in them, and I would go very far to see that their futures would not be jeopardised by any development in the district, but I do not think there is any necessity to worry very much in that respect, because, as the Minister pointed out, the district which it is proposed to operate is the lower district and most of this individual mining is in fact taking place in the upper district. I am aware also that in the exact district where it is proposed to open up operations there are some of those small mines working at the present time, and I think there is hardly any doubt that the people who will lose their employment will be catered for by the mining company when it is set up. It is only reasonable to expect that any such company would look after the interests of those people.

I would go a little bit further than most other people have gone by way of proposals to the Minister. At the present time there are large numbers of unemployed in that district. In fact, large numbers have been on the unemployment list in that district for 20 years. I remember, when I was a child, seeing coal being mined in that district, and being hauled with donkeys and mules and horses all over the country. When the last mine closed down the people who worked in it remained in the district, and there are still there trained miners, and the sons of trained miners, still waiting for the mines to re-open. I believe that even if the upper mines are not regarded as a sound proposition to be operated in the ordinary way, the Minister might consider opening them on a different or more primitive basis, but still working under the same company. What I mean is that while the lower mines would be in course of preparation—I expect there will be delays in getting machinery and establishing the railroad—men could be put to work in groups on the upper mines. There is no doubt about the coal being available, because anyone driving along the roadway, as Senator Hayes has pointed out, can easily see individuals working in miniature mines in their own backyards. If that can be done along the primitive lines which have prevailed there over the years, surely a considerable quantity of coal can be produced by putting groups of 50 or 100 men to work under expert, or semi-expert, supervision? If coal were being dumped in this country by ships travelling from all parts of the world where coal is produced, probably such a suggestion would be ridiculed but, in existing conditions, and in view of the coal shortage, there is no reason why the unemployed in that and the surrounding districts, and particularly in the local towns, should not be put to work in Slievardagh, not alone preparing the way for actual mining, but mining in a primitive fashion in the surrounding districts, which it is not proposed to exploit at the present time.

I am very pleased that this Bill has been introduced and I am also pleased that it is being supported in such a manner by the Seanad. I hope the Minister will proceed to put men to work as soon as possible in Slievardagh. Some Senator suggested that the preliminary work was not important and I think it was Senator Fitzgerald who mentioned that man was naturally a lazy animal, but I say that the people there are not lazy. I suggest that the Minister should set to work as soon as possible on the housing accommodation which will be necessary when the mine is being developed; he should see to it that the construction work is started immediately. He should also proceed to build the four miles of railroad. That preliminary work will mean the employment of a considerable number of men and by the time that work is done the company may be in a position to develop the coal mine.

With regard to native fuel, if we can produce anything like 125,000 tons of anthracite each year there, I believe it will be a great acquisition to this country. As Senator Goulding pointed out, we are not living in normal times and, therefore, everything possible should be done to ensure that the greatest amount of fuel will be produced. There is nothing new in this proposition; there are mines operating on the other side of the hill. I trust that when this board is set up they will utilise to the full the powers given under this Bill and prospect for anthracite and other fuel, wherever it is likely to be available. With regard to the remark made by Senator Hayes about the Constitution, the fact is that the original Article which was instituted by his Party was found unworkable and it was circumvented in subsequent years by referring to a 99 years' lease.

Mr. O'Callaghan

I wish to support the Bill, and, incidentally, to congratulate the Minister. He has been taunted on several occasions with throwing money into bog-holes. On this occasion he is putting it into coalholes and he must be regarded as a man of great courage. I have only one regret and that is that this Bill does not relate to the coalfield at Dromagh, in the County Cork. I am sorry that that place has not been brought in. The mine there was closed down about 80 or 90 years ago and there is a feeling in the locality that it was closed down for other than economic reasons. Some 20 years ago I was one of a few people who tried to exploit it, but we had more civic spirit than money. We spent a little money trying to put the mine working again, but, unfortunately, the effort was not a success.

I think the production of anthracite coal would be particularly valuable at the moment, seeing that there is such a shortage of coal and that anthracite coal has been found so very useful for the purpose of driving cars. Quite a lot of motor transport could be parried on through the use of anthracite coal and if we had a good supply now it would be very valuable from that point of view, apart altogether from its value as a fuel. I wish the Bill every success and I should like to congratulate the Minister on his courage in going ahead with this undertaking.

Mr. MacDermot

Everybody supports this Bill as an emergency measure in a time of desperate need, but I think it would be just as well if we abstained from making either defeatist or optimistic statements about what will become of this mine in the long run. Senator Quirke has spoken about sentiment. Sentiment is a fine thing, but it sometimes cuts more ways than one and it bids us in this case to consider the interests of the people of the country, particularly the poor, as well as the particular people in Tipperary who will get employment in this coal mine. It is very essential that the poor people should be able to get fuel at as low a price as possible, and I hope that we will not do or say anything to commit ourselves, after this emergency is over, to the placing of such a tariff on anthracite as would make it much more expensive than it might otherwise be, just to secure the permanent success of this mine. We do not have to cross that bridge until we come to it.

This Bill is justified and supported by everybody as an emergency measure to meet a crisis and it is a crisis that we are now dealing with and, in that connection, I would like the Minister to say when he expects this mine to come into production; when, in other words, we shall feel the benefit of the Bill we are dealing with to-day. I should like also to supplement a suggestion made by Senator Hayes with regard to the directorship of this company. If Mr. Justice Wylie is able, in connection with various enterprises that he is trying to get started, to obtain able men to give their work as directors free of charge, I cannot see why the Government should not be able to do the same thing in regard to an enterprise that is admittedly occasioned by the emergency. My own belief is that there are plenty of public-spirited and capable citizens who can be got by the Minister to accept positions as directors in such an enterprise as this without charging anything for their services.

I think it is entirely laudable that we should try to bring back into this country the habit of giving public service free of charge, when men can afford the time to do so. I am not speaking, of course, of the whole-time managing director who has to earn his living from the job, but I do think that the other directors might very well be obtained among people who would be willing to do the work without charging anything, in the circumstances under which we live at present.

Mr. Johnston

I think it very necessary that all steps should be taken to provide our people with any fuel that can be provided. Evidently, the House is entirely in favour of the Bill, but, with regard to a statement by the speaker who has just sat down, to the effect that he would be satisfied to support such a Bill during a crisis, I should like to impress on the Minister that I, for my part, would not be so satisfied. When this crisis passes over, and whether this coal mine be 100 per cent. economic or not, I hope the Minister will continue to work it, and to supply the people with fuel provided and raised by the people, instead of providing them with fuel from other countries.

Mr. Hawkins

I join in congratulating the Minister on introducing this Bill. The field has been fairly well covered by other speakers and there is only one point to which I want to draw the Minister's attention. I understand that, in the development of these mines, there is a lot of waste, and, according to an article which I have been reading on research carried out by the Building Research Council in London, this colliery waste can be turned into the best hard-wall plaster and cement, which could be sold, just before the war, at 14/9 as compared with 70/- a ton for ordinary plaster, and I suggest that the Minister might get his experts to look into the possibilities of it.

Mr. MacEntee

Senator Fitzgerald asked me if I could give the House any idea as to the quantity of coal imported into this country every year, and I think I should begin my reply by dealing with that question because it will set this proposal against its proper background. In the year 1938, we imported 2,483,000 tons of coal or various descriptions and of a total value of £3,319,422. Of the coal imported in 1938, 79,000 tons were anthracite coal, as compared with 31,000 tons in 1931, 54,000 in 1934, 89,000 in 1939, and— because the figure is a comparatively insignificant fraction of the total import, I can give the figure for 1940 —92,000 tons in 1940. The first thing these figures indicate is that there has been a growing market for anthracite coal in this country and, secondly, the figures show the extent to which we have been dependent, upon imported fuel. We imported 2,483,000 tons of coal in 1938, but, in 1940, and in the present year, as the House is aware, we have had great difficulty in importing coal.

Since we are, to the extent which the figures indicate, dependent upon coal as a fuel, it is only natural that we should look around us and see to what extent our deficiences in this regard might be met from native sources. That matter was under consideration even before the outbreak of the present emergency and, as I indicated in my opening speech, an exhaustive boring programme of this scheme was undertaken over the period 1934 to 1937, as a result of which we have an estimate, which we may take to be more or less reliable, that there are 5,500,000 tons of coal available in this field. The engineers have expressed their view, as a result of the borings, that the field should be commercially exploited and it would seem, therefore, that there is good ground for some person, whether the State or another, undertaking the risks, which are not inconsiderable—I do not wish to disguise the fact—associated with an enterprise of this nature.

The report of the consultants, as I have indicated, was available for public inspection. It has been, we know, inspected, and a number of propositions put forward from time to time. As I said in my opening remarks, none of the proposals submitted to us was acceptable, either on the ground that there was technical experience available or that it was from the public point of view desirable. In my statement to the Dáil, I indicated that it seemed to me that most of the proposals submitted to us, and apparently submitted to prospective backers outside, were more concerned with the flotation of companies than with the exploitation of these mines. Accordingly, having examined all these facts, we have come to the conclusion that if the further exploration and working development of this field is to be undertaken at all, it could only be undertaken, in the circumstances of our country, by the State. That, I may say, is not the sort of conclusion at which I, at any rate, am likely to arrive without a great deal of hesitation and a great deal of very serious consideration, but I am convinced that if we are to do anything with regard to these mines, this is the only course open to us in our circumstances.

Having decided upon that, we have put ourselves in the position of those who decide that they are going to try to open up a virgin mine. It might be said in regard to that remark that this field has been previously worked. It is true that it has been worked, but it has been worked in a very unscientific and haphazard way, and it is doubtful whether the operations of predecessors in this field have not left very great difficulties which will have to be overcome. But apart from the detrimental effect of these operations on the general mining structure of the field, we can say that the field is a virgin field. In those circumstances, when a number of persons come together to discharge the function of entrepreneurs, they are not in a position, when they are making the initial investment in the undertaking, to say what the costs of production are likely to be, what the output of the mine is likely to be, or to give any of those particulars which would, naturally, find a place in the prospectus of an established undertaking or of a concern in which the particular speculative element, which is always present in mining, was absent or was not as pronounced as it is likely to be in this case. Accordingly, we have put ourselves in the position of an exploiting and developing syndicate wherein it is well known that the real capital to be risked in the enterprise is not represented at all by the nominal capital of the syndicate but by the amount of the financial resources behind those who participate in the syndicate. That is the position in which we are. In the case of a development syndicate, the syndicate is formed, because under the Companies Acts, it has certain advantages. In our case, a development company is to be formed not merely for the advantages which under the Companies Acts it gives us and which it would give private individuals who were risking private money in similar enterprises, but because it Would be quite impossible to undertake this work as part of the ordinary activity of a Government Department.

In order that the commercial exigencies should be expeditiously dealt with, It has been necessary for us to form a company and it has been formed, as Senator Douglas pointed out, with a nominal capital of £100. Behind that, the State, which has formed the syndicate, has indicated to those who will be responsible for developing the enterprise that, if the results of their activities justify it and if, as they proceed, the investment of further moneys is going to be remunerative, we shall be prepared to back them to the extent of £100,000. That is one of the reasons why the Bill has been drafted in this way. Just as the members of a syndicate review the operations of their agents from time to time and decide, upon the results of those operations up to a particular date, whether they are to proceed further with the enterprise, we are providing in this Bill that moneys will only be advanced to the company by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, with the overriding consent of the Minister for Finance, when, on reports submitted to him by the company, he is satisfied that a further investment is justified. Then, the further investment required will form part of the Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce which will be submitted to the Oireachtas so that the Oireachtas will have a further opportunity of reviewing the whole position and saying whether or not, in the light of the results obtained by the expenditure of funds already voted, it is prepared to continue to finance the operations of the company.

I was rather surprised at the line taken by Senator Sir John Keane and Senator Douglas because they had been, on occasion, rather critical of the manner in which undertakings of this sort had been financed hitherto. It has sometimes been suggested that in these cases the Dáil has no control over the expenditure of public moneys and, on occasion, the recommendations of the Banking Commission have been quoted in support of the critical attitude taken up. The extraordinary thing about this Bill is that the financial provisions have been framed with full advertence to the observations of the Banking Commission in regard to these matters and in order to comply as fully as might be with the recommendations they made. I shall quote from paragraph 477 of the Majority Report of the Banking Commission.

"The former category would include such cases as the Electricity Supply Board, Comhlucht Siuicre Eireann, Industrial Alcohol, Dairy Disposal Company, etc. Whatever form of organisation be adopted in these cases, it should not permit the public to hold any form of non-repayable capital in the enterprise."

That is a view which is directly contrary to that expressed by Senator Douglas.

"Full publicity for financial arrangements and results should in every case be insisted upon, as should also the need for legislation to prescribe and define the essential administrative requirements. We have already pointed out in specific cases deficiencies in this respect."

It will he seen that the company here will have a statutory foundation. The Bill provides that, apart from the single shares to be allotted to subscribers to the memorandum of association, the residue of the share capital shall be allotted and issued to the Minister for Finance, so that private participation will be excluded. Another section of the Bill enables the Minister for Finance to transfer shares for the purpose of complying with the requirements of the Companies Acts. In addition, there is a general provision in sub-section (1) of Section 14 that every member of the company shall hold his shares upon trust for the Minister for Finance and shall be bound to pay over to that Minister any dividend or other moneys received from the company for the benefit of the Exchequer. The company is financed, as Senator Douglas mentioned, by advances by the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas. Under Section 16, provision is made for the furnishing by the company of a balance sheet and profit and loss account to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, to be drawn up in a form approved by that Minister after consultation with the Minister for Finance. Finally, sub-section (4) of the same section provides that a copy of every balance sheet and profit and loss account, as furnished, shall be laid on the Table of the Oireachtas. It will be clear from an examination of the sections to which I have referred that, in fact, we have adopted very fully the recommendations of the Majority Report of the Banking Commission in regard to these matters.

Another aspect of this Bill which Senator Douglas criticised was the extent to which the company was to be dependent upon borrowings liable to be repaid at call. Perhaps that is so. But is there any reason to assume that the Minister for Finance, or any other Minister, will behave in an utterly irrational way in regard to this company if the company found itself, as Deputy Douglas suggested it might find itself, not in a position to meet its obligations in regard to those advances, because of the fact that the enterprise had turned out to be more speculative than even I anticipate, and the money was lost? In that connection I think that the Senator has not adverted to all the provisions of Section 11. It is true that the section provides that the advances shall be paid as the Minister for Finance shall appoint; but sub-section (3) of the section also makes it lawful for the Minister at any time, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to waive altogether or to postpone for such time as he thinks proper the payment of any particular half-yearly instalment payable by the company under the section.

Undoubtedly, if we find, as I have said, that the money sunk in the company is lost through no fault of the directorate, the only thing that the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce logically and in equity could do would be to agree that the advances so repayable should be written off. But, if they should so agree, then naturally the matter would come under the inspection of the Comptroller and Auditor-General and, ultimately, under investigation in the Committee on Public Accounts. So that it will be seen that, so far as the financial transactions of this company are concerned, they are going to be subject all the time to the overriding supervision and inspection of the Dáil and of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. From that point of view, it seems to me that it would not have been possible to devise financial provisions which would better safeguard the public interest than the provisions which are included in this Bill.

Senator Lynch and Senator Parkinson spoke of the need for manufacturing or providing here heating appliances specially designed for the use of anthracite. It appears to me that our coal resources, and particularly the resources of this coalfield, would have to be very much larger than in fact they are estimated to be before that would arise as a really pressing problem. I pointed out that the total import of coal into this country is of the order of 2,483,000 tons a year. If we succeed in producing from this coalfield 90,000, 100,000, or 120,000 tons of coal per annum it will be as much, I think, as may reasonably be expected.

Mr. MacDermot

Will the Minister say how much of the coal we import is anthracite?

Mr. MacEntee

I did say that— 92,000 tons in 1940, and of course the demand for anthracite is increasing. I think we need not anticipate any difficulty in disposing of the output of the mine if, in fact, we are able to establish a working colliery there.

Mr. Quirke

Even after the war is over.

Mr. MacEntee

Even if the war were over.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Am I right in saying that the growth of consumption of anthracite was coincident with the importation of certain types of anthracite burners? So far as I understand, at the moment it is practically impossible to import these things, so that for the period of the war it looks now as though that upward movement of the graph will be arrested.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not think we can assume that it is not possible to substitute anthracite for bituminous fuel in all classes of combustion appliances. There are some in which it would be very difficult to do it; but there are a sufficient number using bituminous coal which could be adapted for the use of anthracite, and I do not think that we need anticipate any real practical difficulty in regard to the utilisation of the output of the mine.

Senator Lynch also mentioned the question of fair wages and decent conditions of employment. I have no reason to believe that any enterprise conducted under the auspices of the State will do anything else but pay fair wages and grant decent conditions of employment to its employees. There is no analogy between this Bill and some of the other measures to which the Senator has referred. In the cases which he has mentioned, the Oireachtas was making very large concessions, concessions of practically a monopoly position, to private individuals and private enterprise where the wages paid and the conditions of employment would not come under the periodical review of the Oireachtas. In the case of this company, every time moneys are required they will be obtained by a Vote of the Oireachtas, and upon those occasions the question of the relations between the company and its employees can, if necessary, be raised in the Oireachtas. I hope it will not be raised; I hope it will not be necessary to raise it; in fact I should say that it will not be necessary to raise it. But I do object to writing into measures of this kind, particularly in a case where expedition is of the utmost importance, all sorts of provisions which will hamper and fetter and prevent the development of the work in the way we want it. We cannot have a board charged with the practical task of opening and exploring this field held up because somebody alleges that they are not being paid this and are not being paid that or they are not getting their full rights under the law. We must allow the board to go ahead and operate on the assumption that the directors will be competent, capable men prepared to observe the ordinary standards in dealing with these matters and treat the employees decently and properly. That is the assumption upon which we must proceed. I feel that it would be unwise to tie the hands of the board in the way suggested here.

With regard to the existing coal workers, I cannot commit myself to any undertaking, as I do not know the full circumstances. In the other House, I gathered that they could be described as poachers, taking coal which does not properly belong to them. I could not for a moment accept the proposition that, because these mines are lying unworked—it must be remembered that up to this, these deposits have been private property—and because no person has interfered with people trespassing and utilising the mines for their own purposes, a vested right or interest has been secured to such trespassers. I am satisfied that, when the company commences, there will be sufficient employment available in developing the field in a normal way and there will not be anything to worry about.

On the other question raised by Senator Hayes, that is, the property which might be damaged by flooding or the operations of the company, in that case persons who feel aggrieved or whose property has been damaged have the right to compensation under the Minerals Development Act. The Senator referred to the question of the hoard of directors. In that regard, as far as I am concerned, only persons with particular qualifications from a technical point of view will be appointed on the board. The board will be charged with a task which is highly technical and in respect to which we have not too large a field of experience to draw upon in this country. Accordingly, I shall see—as I wish this company to be a success—that the persons appointed to the board will be very well qualified for the position. At the same time, I do not wish it to be understood that the fact that a person had the wisdom and the good sense to be a supporter of this Government is to be regarded as a disqualification.

Mr. M. Hayes

We know it will not.

Mr. Fitzgerald

At the same time, the Minister will wish to put a civil servant on the board and he will treat that as a qualification.

Mr. M. Hayes

Will Members of the Oireachtas be eligible?

Mr. MacEntee

Personally, I do not feel that this is the sort of condition that ought to be imposed by statute. It would be better to build it up by practice and convention, rather than by prescript.

Mr. M. Hayes

Is not the reverse being built up by practice and convention rather than prescript?

Mr. MacEntee

I do not think so, except in special circumstances, where better qualified persons did not seem to be available. Senator O'Callaghan mentioned the position of the West Cork coalfield. I am afraid it will be some considerable time before the West Cork proposition could be tackled. I have had that field examined and am advised that its development would be very difficult, as it appears to be what is geologically described as "very disturbed" and, though it is practicable to work the coal in email pockets at present, it would be a very difficult matter to work it on a commercial scale—on a scale which would yield any considerable output or give any considerable employment.

Senator Quirke suggested that the company might be able to open the upper workings and employ men in groups of significant size upon them, in the hope of getting out as much coal as possible at the earliest possible moment. I will make that suggestion to the board of the company, but it must be remembered that that is entirely a matter for the board, who will have to use their own discretion as to its practicability or otherwise.

Mr. MacDermot

What about the date of commencing operations?

Mr. MacEntee

I cannot answer that yet. We have first to get the company formed and there are a number of other things to be done. For one thing, it would be necessary to bring an electricity supply to the place where it is proposed to open up the deposit. Consulting engineers must begin opening up the field; and no doubt a certain number of items of plant and equipment will have to he procured. In regard to the remark made by Senator Sir John Keane, it is not proposed at this stage—or, Indeed, perhaps, not at all—to link up the field with the railway line. No expenditure of that sort will be undertaken until the prospects of profit have been fairly clearly demonstrated.

Question put and agreed to.

Sir John Keane

I wish to protest against subsequent stages being taken now. It is an important measure. The Dáil has considered it with deliberation and it has been a long time incubating, and I do not think that it is in accordance with respect to this House that it should all be taken to-day. An extra week cannot really affect the essentials of the measure.

Mr. MacEntee

I am not pressing the House to take the subsequent stages to-day, but ask if it would be possible to take all stages next week, as the Seanad would then be adjourning until after Easter.

Sir John Keane

I am quite agreeable to that.

Ordered accordingly.