Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Oct 1931

Vol. 40 No. 4

Financial Resolution. - Mines and Minerals Bill, 1931.—Second Stage.

I call the attention first of Deputies to the fact that Part III of this Act is entitled "The leasing of State mines and minerals," whereas Part IV deals with "The grant of rights in non-State mines and minerals." The headings of these two sections of the Bill show the two main divisions of the clauses. The Bill is necessitated on account of the provisions of Article 11 of the Constitution. Part III deals with the difficulties that have been encountered in connection with Article 11 of the Constitution. Portion of Article 11 reads: "All the lands and waters, mines and minerals, within the territory of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) hitherto vested in the State, or any department thereof, or held for the public use or benefit" ... and a variety of other things shall "belong to the Irish Free State" ...

"And shall be controlled and administered by the Oireachtas, in accordance with such regulations and provisions as shall be from time to time approved by legislation." The Article goes on to state "... the same shall not, nor shall any part thereof, be alienated, but may in the public interest be from time to time granted by way of lease or licence to be worked or enjoyed under the authority and subject to the control of the Oireachtas."

That Article would include such mines and minerals as come into the State possession under or through the agency of the Irish Land Commission by reason of land purchase under many of the Acts, and also would include any mines of gold and silver. Part III of this Bill also deals with those things which have been declared to be mines and minerals in the possession of the State. The Bill gives the legislation which is required by the Article; the legislation under which a lease may be granted, and this State property enjoyed and worked under the control and subject to the authority of the Oireachtas.

Section 10 of Part III is the operative section as far as these State mines and minerals are concerned. Section 10 enacts:—

"If in the opinion of the Minister it is in the public interest that any State mines and minerals or any exclusive State mining right should be granted by way of lease to any person, the Minister may, under and in accordance with this Part of this Act, demise such State mines and minerals or exclusive State mining right to such person by way of lease for such term not exceeding ninety-nine years as the Minister shall think proper."

Under Section 4 of the Bill by definition State mines and minerals are extended for the purpose of Section 10 to mean not only such mines and minerals as were in the possession of the State at the passing of the Constitution, but any that have since come into its possession. Correspondingly, Clause B of sub-section (1) of Section 2 takes away from the Land Commission the power it had of disposing of any mines and minerals it had possession of, a right which incidentally has been in abeyance since the passing of the Constitution because such disposal was prohibited until legislation was passed allowing the disposal of these rights. Section 12 dealing with State property is extended by Section 4. Section 12 gives the Minister also power to enter upon such lands for the purpose of experimenting, to make such experiments (including borings) as in his opinion appear necessary or desirable. Section 13 indicates, "wherever any damage has been done by entry to State lands or by any of the operations stated in Section 13 the person exercising such right, including the Minister, in an exclusive State right of mining or by searching for and taking State mines and minerals must pay compensation." The compensation terms are set out in Part 7 of the Bill. Clause 38 is the directing section. "The amount of compensation under this Act shall, in default of agreement, be determined by the Board in the manner provided by this Part of this Act."

There are two section I should advert to in connection with payment of compensation. Section 40, sub-section (5) states :—"Where any award in relation to land for the time being subject to a land purchase annuity provides for the payment of any moneys to the Irish Land Commission, upon payment thereof to the Irish Land Commission such moneys shall be applied by the Irish Land Commission as they think fit in discharge of the arrears (if any) of such annuity and towards the redemption of such annuity or in either of the said ways."

Another section indicates that where compensation is awarded, and where the Land Commission annuity is payable, some portion of the compensation may be used to redeem portion of the land annuity. The basis of the consideration for that is that as the damage done to the lands may to some degree weaken the security, therefore, the annuity to that extent should be redeemed. Section 14 is also in connection with the compensation side of this measure. I now direct attention mainly to lines 5 to 12 on page 8. Under the old Land Purchase Acts, where property passed from the owner, and where the mineral rights were reserved to the Land Commission, if afterwards the Land Commission sold these, the law was that 25 per cent, of the rents and royalties received had to be paid to the owner. Later legislation, such as the Land Act of 1903, determined that where land passed and where mineral rights were reserved, that the owner should get such rights as the Oireachtas would determine. We propose to determine in sub-section (1) of Section 14 that an equivalent 25 per cent. be paid in relation to the rent or royalties derived from the sale of minerals from land that passed under the 1903 Act.

Does the Minister mean by owner the original landlord?

In most cases it would be. I can see exceptions to that, but that would be the answer generally. Part III is the part which deals with State property, and legislation is required under Article 11 for the enjoyment of rights given in State property. The main sections deal with property covered and with regard to the terms and conditions of compensation.

It has often been represented that there is valuable mineral wealth underneath the soil which is in private ownership, and that, for some reason or another, either because a number of owners would have to combine for the purpose of working or because some owner has held out and will not allow the work, or for a variety of reasons, that valuable mineral property is unworked. We are trying to deal with that in Sections 4, 5 and 6. Sections 17 and 18 are important sections in connection with this matter. Section 17, in a series of sub-sections, sets out that grants variously described as grant of mining rights may be made in relation to these minerals. The first three sub-sections describe the rights in various ways and the description given, to some extent, reveals the reason why the right has been granted.

If Deputies will look at the two concluding lines in each of these sub-sections they will see "a mining (proprietor's) right to work such minerals"; "a mining (small parcels) right to work first-mentioned minerals"; and the third has it "a mining (area) right to work the remainder of such minerals." The three points made in the three sections are these :—The first refers to the difficulty encountered where minerals are comprised in or lying under land subject to a lease or otherwise, and are otherwise incapable of being worked without the concurrence of two or more persons. Then we decide that we can grant to one person that right, and that not only over his own land, but over the others. The second sub-section deals with cases where minerals are owned in such small parcels that they cannot be properly or conveniently worked by themselves, but that one enterprising person may work them. Then we can give to one of these the right to work these small parcels on their own lands and on the lands adjacent.

The third sub-section is different. This points to where there is a likelihood that minerals in a certain area will be left permanently unworked by reason of the fact that they are in small parcels and that they are spread over a large area. The intention is to bring these under one working. Sub-section (4) is most important. That sub-section says that "where in the opinion of the Minister, minerals are not being worked, or are not being worked efficiently, and no satisfactory reason is shown by the person having an interest therein to the Minister for not working such minerals or for not working such minerals efficiently, the Minister may, subject to and in accordance with this Part of the Act, grant to any person who desires, either by himself or through his lessees, to work such minerals a right (in this Part of this Act referred to as a mining (unworked minerals) right) to work such minerals."

I point to that as being the greatest invasion of private property that we propose to make in this Bill. It is not for any specific reason, such as the difficulty in working a small parcel, but simply because it appears that the minerals are not being worked rightly, and this right may be granted to anyone not necessarily an adjoining owner. This is all subject to conditions that follow afterwards.

Section 18 goes on to refer to ancillary rights. It is the necessary complement to what is being done under Section 17 that where any facility, right or privilege is required in order that minerals may be properly and conveniently worked, there is power given that those ancillary rights should be granted.

Section 34 indicates in a general way the point of view that has been taken about this. Section 34 might be paraphrased by saying that what happens is this: One makes an owner compulsorily grant a lease. We do it for him. What is to be done in the conditions is, as if there were a willing lessor or lessee or grantor or grantee. You can give no more than the grantor would have given or that the grantee would get acting on his own from the private owner.

We say you must grant certain rights and they are hedged about with certain conditions. We enforce upon the owner the necessity of granting the rights that are described in Sections 17 and 18. Viewing the thing in that way, of course, it is obvious that if a willing grantor was given certain rights payment would have to be made and so this compensation falls to be paid. Before you pass away from this I want to refer to certain terms and conditions. Section 22 refers to some of these. Reference was made to a Mining Board, of which I will speak in a moment. When a report is sent in then the Minister is to consider it. He is to grant it, provided that various conditions and terms have been kept, and it is made clear that it is in the public interest that such rights should be granted to the applicant. In that event these rights may be granted subject to such conditions and for such a period as he thinks fit.

The compensation terms to which I have referred are dealt with in Section 40. Section 38 will again have effect here:

The amount of compensation under this Act shall, in default of agreement, be determined by the Board in the manner provided by this part of this Act.

Claims of compensation may be made under Section 40 by any person claiming to be entitled to such compensation. Section 46 is more or less a term of reference to the Board with regard to the assessment of compensation:

The Board in assessing compensation ... shall assess the same on the basis of what would be fair and reasonable between a willing grantor and a willing grantee having regard to the conditions subject to which such right is granted.

Other safeguards of the type I have referred to are mentioned in Sections 19, 21 and 22 and a variety of sections follows indicating that there may be revocation, modification and so forth. The Mining Board is described in Part II.—the constitution of it, its members and so on, and the qualifications that have to be possessed. I want to point out that the Board has separate functions in relation to State mines and minerals and in relation to the granting of rights in connection with mines and minerals that do not belong to the State.

In connection with State mines and minerals, the Board acts purely in an advisory capacity. It is for the Minister to refer to the Board applications made and arguments put up. The Minister must take into consideration a report from the Board and any other considerations presented to him; but the Board has no judicial function—no function of determining in relation to State mines and minerals. That is for the Minister in conjunction with the Minister for Finance. The Board has a judicial capacity when it comes to the assessment of compensation and payment for rights. The Board has also a judicial capacity in relation to the granting of these rights of non-State mines and minerals. In relation to the leasing of State mines and minerals, the Board has not the final say. It is purely an advisory body for that purpose. It is the Minister, acting in conjunction with the Minister for Finance, who determines in that respect. The big question of whether a lease is to be granted, and the conditions or terms upon which the lease is to be granted, is entirely a matter for the Minister. That is the big difference we make as between the granting of leases of State mines and minerals and the granting of rights in property that does not belong to the State.

In what section is reference made to the Board's functions with regard to State mines and minerals?

Any of the sections which refer to compensation do refer to the Mining Board because all matters of compensation are to be settled by the Board. Under the section dealing with State mines and minerals liability to pay compensation for the damage and the amount of money to be paid for the damage will be referred to the Board. I am stressing rather the opposite point, that as far as the leasing of State mines and minerals is concerned, we recommend by this piece of legislation that that should be left to the Minister, acting with the Minister for Finance. The Mining Board is not going to be the determining factor as far as whether or not a lease is to be given in such mines and minerals; that determination rests with the Minister.

The other parts of this Bill are somewhat general. Part 8 is miscellaneous and rather general in its terms. Sections 49 and 50 are for the purpose of ensuring that information should be given to my own Department with regard to certain minerals. Section 51 has power with regard to fencing, a matter which has often been complained of but which we take to ourselves here. In Section 52 we make a partial repeal of the Mining Industry Act, 1920, an Act which never had any great operation in this country. It is one that consolidates powers within a particular Department.

That is the scheme of the Bill. There is one other matter that ought to be referred to. As regards Section 3, the explanation of it is that questions in relation to exclusive mining rights are to be determined in a particular way by reference to the Irish Land Commission exclusive of the Judicial Commissioner, with an appeal from that Board to the Judicial Commissioner. That is necessary. When I was reading it I left out certain portions of Article 11. If I may stress another portion of the Article now, it goes on to say:

All the lands and waters, mines and minerals, within the territory of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) hitherto vested in the State, or any department thereof, or held for the public use or benefit, and also all the natural resources of the same territory (including the air and all forms of potential energy), and also all royalties and franchises within that territory shall ... belong to the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann).

These words followed:

subject to any trusts, grants, leases or concessions then existing in respect thereof,

—matters that can be fairly easily determined—

or any valid private interest therein, and shall be controlled and administered by the Oireachtas, in accordance with such regulations and provisions as shall be from time to time approved by legislation...

Under the various Land Purchase Acts a variety of circumstances might have occurred. Certain things passed from the ownership of the landlord, sometimes to the tenant and sometimes they passed away from the landlord and remained in the possession of the Land Commission. There are certain things described as stone, gravel, sand, and clay and they distinctly passed to the tenant but it has not yet been determined clearly by any judicial decision what the four words comprise. This Bill does not determine and will not set out to determine whether there is in any piece of property that appears to belong to the State any existing valid title. If any question of that sort arises, particularly in respect of land under the old Land Purchase Acts—if the legal question arises—we leave that to the Land Commission exclusive of the Judicial Commissioner, reserving him as the court of appeal.

This will not clear up some of the difficulties which hitherto have been experienced in connection with Article 11, but it does go some way towards determining what is the right and the wrong. It is quite clear if people had an incentive to work minerals in a particular piece of property and, after this Bill was made law, approached my Department with a view to getting a lease, there would not be much good in such people getting a lease unless they were pretty certain of their rights, that the property had been gripped by Article 11 and is properly administered by this Act as being previously gripped by that Article. We would have to have some method of getting judicial decision and that will arise in a great many cases by a simple action in court. On certain of these things, if any question arises, then the Minister may refer such questions to the Land Commission for determination with an appeal eventually to the Judicial Commissioner and, further, an appeal to the Supreme Court.

I stress that because at one time we had considered defining these four words, "gravel, sand, clay, etc." We had also at one time considered defining what these words, "valid private interests subsisting therein" might mean, but the difficulty we were in then was that we might possibly have been changing property rights without having any appreciation of the circumstances that surround any of these rights. We feel the best thing to do is to have a Bill which gives the legislation required under Article 11; leaving out for judicial determination any matter which is yet undetermined and which would properly fall to be determined by a judicial tribunal.

The framework of the Bill is as I have described it. Section 3 deals with State mines and minerals, giving power to lease to the Minister. Sections 4, 5 and 6 deal with certain rights we feel we ought to have the power to grant in property not belonging to the State for the purpose of getting mineral wealth efficiently and properly worked. We surround all that with certain reservations and conditions, and in all cases where damage is done or property passes we allow for the payment of compensation, for the passage of money. But the framework we have arrived at after a great deal of consideration is simply, if the House accepts it, that the Minister is to decide in one case, and the Mining Board to decide in the other.

This Bill is one which can be more adequately discussed in Committee than on Second Reading. To the general principle of the Bill, if I might call it such, very little exception can be taken. It is our view that the powers which the Minister proposes to acquire under the Bill are powers that, generally speaking, he should have, and our main complaint is that he has been very slow in acquiring them. That applies particularly to the power given in Part IV, to grant rights in non-State mines and minerals. It has been stated, and I believe it to be true, that there are a number of places in the country where minerals are not being worked because the persons now possessing the rights to work them do not desire that the deposit shall be developed. If the Minister is now taking on himself the power to grant the right to work these minerals to other persons, we hope that he is not doing so merely for the purpose of window-dressing, but with the very definite intention in mind of exercising that right when he has secured it. The mineral resources of this country may not be very great, but such as they are we should make the most of them. If their development has been impeded by the absence of this legislation, then we hope that the Minister will make up for the delay in its introduction by using it ruthlessly when it has been enacted. We do not consider that the powers he has taken to interfere in the working of non-State mines and minerals are anything too drastic. The only fear that we have in respect to them is that the Minister may not be as determined as we would like him to be to use these powers when he has secured them.

There are only a few remarks I wish to make concerning the general structure of the Bill. Most of the matters that arise out of it in respect of which amendment may be required can be discussed much more satisfactorily when the Bill is before us in Committee. The first impression I received on reading over the Bill was that it was a typical product of the Department of Industry and Commerce. I can visualise the Minister on receiving the Bill from the draftsman's office going through it with a blue pencil and everywhere he found the word "shall" striking it out and substituting the word "may." He seems to have been very careful to prevent any definite obligation being left upon him to do anything and to ensure that everything would be left to his discretion.

To such an extent did he carry that carefulness that he has, I think, succeeded in making the Bill appear ridiculous in some particulars. He has just referred to Section 3, which relates to the determination of questions in relation to exclusive mining rights. The section says that if any question arises as to whether an exclusive mining right has or has not been vested in the Land Commission or in Sáorstát Eíreann, the Minister may refer that question to the Land Commission for determination. What happens if the Minister does not refer it to the Land Commission? If there is a question to be settled, and the Minister, in the exercise of the discretion which he is giving himself in the wording of the section, does not refer it to the Land Commission, what happens? Why is the word "may" there and not "shall"? Further down in the same section, sub-section (4) says "The Irish Land Commission may make rules regulating proceedings before the Irish Land Commission and appeals to the Judicial Commissioner under this section." What happens if the Land Commission does not make the rules? Can proceedings be taken before it or before the Judicial Commissioner? On the other side we see that the Minister may by order make regulations in relation to proceedings before the Board, the times and places of the sittings of the Board, the persons to whom, and the times and manner in which notices of the sittings of the Board shall be given, the admission or exclusion of the public, or any other matter in relation to the practice and procedure of the Board the Minister may consider to be necessary. What happens if the Minister does not make regulations? Can the Board operate if the Minister, in the exercise of that discretion which he insisted upon keeping, decides not to make any regulations at all?

We can go through the Bill section by section and point to quite a number of cases in which the Minister has given himself the power to make the entire Bill inoperative if he wants to do so. One of the main faults, however, that I find with this Bill is in relation to Part 3—leasing of State mines and minerals. I am sure Deputies who read it were struck by the fact that no provision is contained therein for submission to the Dáil of particulars of any leases of State mines which are granted. In the State Lands Act provision is made for placing on the Table of the Dáil particulars of all leases of State lands and the Dáil has power, if it so decides, to annul any such leases by resolution. Surely a provision of that kind, which is considered necessary or desirable in relation to State lands should also exist in relation to State mines or mining rights? I am quite certain it is not an oversight on the part of the Minister, but a definite decision on his part to prevent the Dáil acquiring that power if he can. We want to know the motives that led him to make that decision.

One of the major matters arising is in connection with Section 14, and the Minister has drawn attention to this Section, which provides that where a mining right is vested in this State under the Land Act of 1903 or the Land Act of 1923 or this Bill, and a lease of that mining right is given by the Minister, there shall be paid to the former owner of the land 25 per cent. of the rent or purchase money received by the State in respect of the mining right, less whatever expenses are incurred by the State in experimenting or in the payment of compensation.

I want to know what claim can be advanced for that royalty of 25 per cent. to the former owner of an estate who sold it to the Land Commission, and who, at the time of the sale, did not know that there were minerals under it. It seems to me that such an owner can advance no claim in equity at all, and that it is a foolish proposition to ask the Dáil to agree to give that owner a claim in perpetuity to 25 per cent. of the income of the estate in respect of the minerals of which he was not aware. The same would apply, I think, to minerals the existence of which might have been known, but which were not being worked commercially by the former owner at the time of the sale to the Land Commission. Some claim might be made if the former owner could prove that he had suffered a definite loss of income, or had been affected to his detriment in some other way by the acquisition of the estate by the Land Commission. But if, in fact, at the time he did not know there were any minerals on the land, or, knowing it, had never attempted to explore their possibilities or to work them commercially, it is surely preposterous to propose that he should be given this claim against these minerals, to receive 25 per cent. of any income the State may derive from leasing them. We are certainly going to oppose that particular provision, and will endeavour to insert an amendment on the Committee Stage which will express our views in that regard.

I do not intend to discuss this Bill at any length now. There are a number of matters arising out of it which do not affect the principle and which cannot properly be considered now. These matters will arise again. The only thing further I have to say is that the Minister is open to the criticism of the Dáil for the very long delay that has taken place in the introduction of the Bill. As long ago as 1926 he promised this Bill. He promised it quite frequently since, and it has now appeared in 1931. He has not given us any indication of the cause of the delay or drawn attention to any special difficulty which would necessitate five years' consideration before the Bill could be printed and circulated. However, it is here now, and the main concern of the House should be to give it a speedy passage subject to proper amendment, where amendment is necessary, and to endow the Minister with the various powers he asks, subject to his giving an undertaking that he is going to use these powers when he gets them.

I think this is a Bill which will receive general approval not merely in every portion of this House, but in every portion and from every section of the country. As Deputy Lemass reminded us, it is a Bill that is long overdue and unfortunately it comes at a time when the fortunes of the mining rights are at their very lowest ebb in this country. Two things are essential to make this Bill a success. It is essential that the State should have the largest possible control of the mining rights. If it has not, the Bill will be of no use. Without going through the provisions of the Bill, I think that an honest effort has been made to carry out that point, which is absolutely essential, if the Bill is ever to come to anything. The second essential in my view is this, that it is necessary that "minerals" should have as wide a definition as possible, having regard to private rights and interests. The definition of the word "minerals" has been the subject of many decisions, and is, I think, to-day the subject of pending decisions in an adjoining country. It is essential that the necessity for having debated by litigation once again, as to what are minerals and what are not minerals, should be settled once and for all by this Bill. There is no question but the definition which the Minister has given to the word "minerals" is the largest definition ever given to that word. I suggest to the Minister that the difficulty is that the definition is now so wide that it will include almost anything. Looking at the definition of the word "minerals" in the most important part of the Bill, Section 1 (2), it says "The expression ‘minerals' includes all minerals and substances in or under land obtainable by underground or surface working." I would suggest to the Minister that turf is a substance, "in our under land obtainable by surface working," and that the Bill as it stands prohibits once and for all, without the consent of the State, the exercise of any turbary rights. The same observation will apply to sand and to gravel, and I would suggest to the Minister that he should get rid of this trouble arising, as it would be a very serious matter for this country if to-morrow the country were to awake to the fact that the Dáil had passed a Bill which would prevent forever the further cutting of turf, the taking of sand or of gravel. Bills that have been passed recently may have given rise to a little heat, if not in the country, at all events in this House, but it will be nothing compared to the heat that will arise if the country was told that it was the considered view of the Executive Council that we were to have no more turf.

I suggest to the Minister that he might add to that definition a restrictive clause such as this: "But shall not include sand or gravel used or intended to be used solely for the purpose of building, or the erection or repair of houses or buildings, and shall not include turf, bogwood or other bogstuffs." I think the Minister might see his way to modify slightly the definition of the word "minerals," but, while I say that, I know some of the difficulties attaching to putting in anything like a restrictive amendment to that word. I agree that the Minister was right in taking as wide a definition as possible.

I think it was Deputy Lemass who suggested, in connection with Section 3, that the words "the Minister may" be changed to "the Minister shall." I suggest that "may" is the proper word. The word "shall" would put the Minister in the position that if any one put up a claim, no matter how frivolous or untenable it was, the Minister would be forced of necessity to submit that ridiculous and untenable claim for the decision of the Judicial Commissioner.

Who is to decide that it is ridiculous and untenable?

Mr. Wolfe

Common sense. I think that may fairly be left to the Minister. The Deputy, I am sure, will be with me to this extent: that it would be possible to put up a question that would be absolutely frivolous, ridiculous and untenable. Given the admission that that would be possible, then of necessity the question would have to be submitted by the Minister to the Judicial Commissioner. As a result, time and expense would be taken up as well as delay in the investigation of mineral rights, a thing which I know the Deputy would not wish to render possible. The only way of getting rid of that difficulty is by using the word which the Minister has put into the section.

I am sure that by a term used in sub-section (2) of Section 5 the Minister did not intend to place any slur on the profession of which I am a very humble member. I take it from him that he would be quite pleased to add after the words "practising barrister" the words "or solicitor." It would be common sense to do so, as a solicitor is at least as well able to judge the value and quality of mining rights as a practising barrister. In most cases, if you get the right man he has far more experience than a barrister in these matters. The average barrister knows very little about mining rights. The average solicitor does. I am sure I need only remind the Minister of that to have his assurance that he does not intend to place any slur on the solicitors' profession and that the matter will be remedied at the earliest opportunity. Subject to what I have said, I believe the Bill will have the approval of the country.

The Deputy who has just spoken seems to have been in a bit of a quandary as regards what exactly are minerals and what are not. In that respect he is not alone in the world because many people have not been able to differentiate between organic and inorganic chemistry. A few things in connection with this Bill strike one immediately. In Part II, Section 12, there is the right of entry to experiment by the Minister. I take it that means that somebody empowered by the Minister is entitled to enter land to see what is contained under the surface of it. Deputies, including myself, have made appeals here that before now a geological survey of this country should have been made. It is a most important thing in order to ascertain what minerals can be produced in the country either for internal use or for export. This section of the Bill provides that if we set up a Board for the purpose of carrying out a geological survey of the country the Minister must compensate. The Minister may not agree with me on that, but I hold that under this section the Minister must pay compensation for the right of entry for any Board that may be set up for the purpose of carrying out a geological survey.

We want to ascertain what minerals are contained in the country. We have got deposits, galena, barytes, and others. It should be the function of any Government in this country to ascertain how much we have or what we have of any particular mineral so that we may utilise it for our own use or export it. A geological survey of the country has not been carried out. Any text book on geology will show that certain things have been done in the past to find out the mineral wealth of the country, but here the Minister sets out to compensate for the right of entry any person whose land is entered either by a Board or by a company set up by him to carry out a geological survey.

When certain lands were taken over by the Land Commission from the landlords there were certain rights, fishing, shooting and mineral rights, reserved to the landlords. Mining rights were reserved in certain places to them. Under this Bill the man who purchases his land and pays his annuities to the Land Commission is not entitled to the minerals that underlie his land. If and when the Minister pays compensation to a landlord who formerly owned land on which he proposes to enter to ascertain if it has a mineral bearing area, the landlord is to get 25 per cent of the compensation for any minerals that are found underlying it, land for which some unfortunate Irishman is paying to the Land Commission. A typical example occurs to my mind at Glenagivney, Innishowen, in the County Donegal, formerly owned by the Earl of Shaftesbury. That land is at present in the possession of tenants who are paying to the Land Commission. If a coal bearing or any other mineral tract is found on that land the Minister is supposed to pay compensation not to the people who are paying to the Land Commission but to the Earl of Shaftesbury, the former landlord. That will have to be rectified before this Bill gets support from this side of the House, if my colleagues are in agreement with me on that, as I feel sure they are.

In my opinion, the tenants who have been paying to the Land Commission for years should be entitled to the minerals underlying their land. If these minerals are reserved to the landlord, that is the fault of somebody other than the tenant. If the Minister has to pay compensation to somebody for entering land to find out the mineral wealth of it, it is the fault of the Minister that he did not take steps long since to have the land entered compulsorily by a Board composed of geological experts to ascertain the mineral wealth of Ireland. That suggestion was made to the Minister three years ago, but he did not act upon it. Under the Bill the Minister now wants to pay compensation to a man for entering his land in order to find out whether it has a mineral bearing tract or not. These are things that must be rectified before the Bill is allowed to pass through the House.

This Bill deals with a highly technical subject, and the House is not in a position to judge fully what may happen when a concrete instance regarding compensation, the deciding of claims, etc., comes before the Board. There are a few matters, however, that can well be stressed even on the Second Reading of the Bill, which must be largely experimental for many years to come. Deputy Wolfe has called attention to some of them. One of them is that the Dáil and the State should take the largest possible powers to themselves in regard to the whole question of mineral rights or the development of minerals. For that reason, I think, it is rather strange that there does not seem to be anything definite in the Bill regarding any work of prospecting, surveying, or even for the development of the mineral resources by the Board itself.

Does the Minister think that people will be available in all cases to invest money and to meet themselves the heavy expense that will probably accrue before the question that will naturally arise can be decided by this Board? It seems to me that such people will only be forthcoming wherever there is clear evidence that mining can be undertaken with the prospect of good profits. In other cases where we can only go on hearsay or certain geological evidence, which, however good it may be, may prove to be rather fruitless when we examine the proposition from the commercial point of view, it seems to me that the Minister ought to give the Board full powers to do these things themselves if the necessary enterprise is not forthcoming to do the work.

I do not know whether the period of two years is sufficient to permit of real results being achieved in this prospecting. It seems to me that the Minister could enlarge the period to say five years so as to give people who are interested and who may not be very heavily capitalised every opportunity to see whether the thing is really feasible. I think the period of two years might be increased, but I have not sufficient knowledge to say. Possibly the Minister has good reasons for fixing that period. The point stressed by Deputy Lemass in regard to the terms of the lease and the fact that these terms should be laid before the Dáil as in the case of the State Lands Act is important, particularly when we see that the Minister in conjunction with the Minister for Finance, has the power to grant these rights to individuals quite free of any charge or payment. In that case there should be very good reasons indeed. We can understand that such cases may occur, but why should not Ministers on the opposite side give the Dáil an opportunity of discussing them or at least have the matter brought before the Dáil?

The part of the Bill to which our Party is opposed in the present state of their knowledge, is the provision regarding the twenty-five per cent. We are told that royalties are very small payments, and we can imagine that, in well-developed mines where development has been going on for possibly generations, the royalty may appear very small, but in the beginning, when you are trying to develop your resources, as we are, the royalty may be very heavy and may be quite sufficient to turn the business from a profit-making into a loss-making concern. It may be sufficient to dissipate whatever profits may afterwards accrue. I think there is great force in the point put forward that when there is no proof that the minerals have been worked heretofore and, as is often the case, that there is no proof that the former owner of the land had any knowledge that the minerals were there, when the State does the necessary geological and survey work and proves the minerals are there, and when some other individual comes along, it seems rather far fetched that a former owner, who really has no title that one can see, judging in an ordinary commonsense way, should get twenty-five per cent. It is true that various expenses are deducted from the twenty-five per cent., and that then it may not seem very much. Nevertheless, it may be some considerable sum. In all the circumstances and in the absence of fuller information we are opposed to it.

I think that Part V of the Bill, Section 27, which gives the Board power to allow persons who have been restricted for various causes, which did not seem to be surmountable, legal causes or otherwise, and who have been trying to develop or prospect and have not succeeded, is a most valuable one. I would like to see it coupled with definite powers given to the Board to work an area.

Deputy Wolfe has touched on the question of sand and gravel. The question is, will not interpretation of the definitions "sand and gravel," if an attempt is made to exclude them from the operations of the Bill, cause difficulties later. I think the Minister is right to take the fullest possible power to make his definition as wide as possible. It would be a very bad thing if china clay or some other mineral of that kind were excluded because the court might decide that it was in fact clay as, under the old land cases, brick earth was excluded because it was decided that it was not, in fact, a mineral. In any case I think the Minister is right to make the definition as wide as possible so as to cover all kinds of clays. The Board will not be so foolish as to interfere with ordinary people who are quarrying for sand or gravel for building. The question arises, what is going to happen the tenant occupier, who, I think, will not be at all satisfied if considerable inconvenience is caused to him, and who may suffer damage to property, while the whole of the compensation payable goes to the Land Commission? If this Bill passes in the same form in which it now stands, it may happen that all the compensation will go to the Land Commission. We do not question the right of the Land Commission to appropriate to itself this compensation where the security of the land has been weakened. Where it is clear the State has a claim, that claim should be met, but I foresee great difficulties. Tenant occupiers will be looking for compensation, and that compensation may not be available.

It is now nine o'clock and private members' business should be taken.

Do I understand that the Deputy in whose name the business is down is not here?

Deputy Ward is not here, but it has been arranged that No. 18 will be taken. I am not sure whether No. 18 will occupy an hour-and-a-half. If there is to be no division on this motion, it might be better to conclude the Second Reading.

What time would the Minister require to conclude?

Fifteen or twenty minutes.

We are agreeable to the postponement of private business if the debate on this Bill concludes by 9.30.

I know of cases where limestone quarries have been closed for some years. That has caused very serious inconvenience to farmers in the neighbourhood. Lime is extensively used for reclamation of land in this particular district and, as a result of the closing of the local quarries, it is not possible for farmers to obtain lime. I hope the Minister will make clear in this Bill that every facility will be given to people on whose land limestone quarries are situate to re-open them and to manufacture lime. The inconvenience caused for some years past has been very serious and of no benefit to anybody. The quarries were closed down and left to lie idle while nobody has gained any benefit. On the other hand, the people of the district have suffered serious loss.

I support the Second Reading of this Bill. It will remove certain restrictions which prevent mines being worked at present. The Minister replied to me recently on the question of the working of the ochre mines at Avoca. As is well known, these mines gave employment to a large number of men in the area. Owing to the heavy royalties which the company had to meet, the mines had to be closed down. The royalties amounted to over 25 per cent. I would ask the Minister to consider favourably an amendment which may be introduced in Committee bearing on this matter. Section 17 is the most important section of the Bill, because it gives the Minister the right to grant a lease to persons to work mines. By the removal of the heavy royalties in the case to which I have referred, I hope that employment will be provided at Avoca.

A variety of points have been raised, but they are mainly Committee points. A few of these points may be dealt with, as they go somewhat to the principle of the Bill. Deputy Lemass discussed the nonappearance of the word "shall," and its replacement by the word "may" in several sections. He queried it in Section 3, amongst others. Deputy Wolfe has answered that. It is quite clear that to impose on me the responsibility of referring to the Land Commission every question which might arise under (a), (b), and (c), would be very burdensome and would, in fact, if properly worked, give the recalcitrant owner many opportunities of postponing activities with regard to mines or minerals and their working. There is the point, in addition to what Deputy Wolfe mentioned, that cases of this type may also come before one of the ordinary courts. There may be a legal point of a particular type raised and it would be quite wrong, as well as being burdensome, to have the obligation laid upon the Minister to refer a matter which arises to the Land Commission, while at the same time the matter is being tried out in one of the ordinary courts of the land to get the question of right determined. Similarly in Section 6, with regard to the word "shall." The Deputy will have to go further than he suggests, because the section says "in relation to all or any of the following matters." If I were disposed to nullify the Bill, I could apparently still retain that power. Deputy Lemass and some other Deputy said that there was a definite avoidance in this Bill of the practice which has grown up in connection with the State Lands Act, where leases, before being made, are publicly notified to the Dáil, and the Dáil has a certain number of days in which the question may be raised. We did deliberately avoid that procedure. If people want any sort of mineral development in the country they had better keep clear away from that procedure. Imagine the circumstances. Somebody with information derived in a scientific way, by geological surveys, by reading the information available to him, by entering upon the lands with permission of the person in possession for certain purposes and making certain small tests — which could be done—comes to the conclusion that there is a prospect of working certain minerals. He finds that they are State controlled and approaches my Department with regard to a lease. He is the first on the spot. He has used a certion amount of intelligence with regard to finding out what is there; made certain preliminary observations, and possibly spent a certain sum of money in getting data for his own benefit. I am supposed to take that lease here, turn this House into some kind of auction mart, revealing to the House what that man is proposing to offer.

Inevitably, it seems to me, there would incidentally emerge information as to what the particular mineral that was being prospected for was. After the person first on the spot had shown a certain amount of vigilance and intelligence, the offer he is making is to be thrown open to this House for consideration and the House may say "That is not sufficient. We will seek for a better bargain." If there is to be any mineral development, you must cut yourself clean away from that type of procedure, which would inevitably stop development. Nobody is going to run the risk of having his plan revealed, so that somebody else may come in and a better bargain be made for the State. We do not regard the moneys that may accrue to the State by way of rents or royalties as the primary consideration. That is put in a rather negative form in the Bill—that the Minister shall take the rent unless it seems to him that there is some reason why the rent should be remitted. One of the things we stress as an important thing to be observed in negotiations and in leases that are afterwards made is that the question of the rents or royalties that may accrue to the State Department are not the main consideration, but rather the prospect of getting mineral development in the country. These are the things that would be canvassed if we adopted the procedure of having leases brought before the House, with the prospect of their being annulled after cross-examination as to what they were all about and whether this was the best offer that could be obtained. Deliberately we avoided that procedure, and we will deliberately persist in trying to get the Dáil not to accept it.

Section 14 was referred to by a number of Deputies. It was referred to by one Deputy in a way which showed that he had not any understanding of what it was intended to effect. Deputy Carney canvassed this section from a peculiar angle. He spoke of where the mineral rights were reserved to a landlord. Where mineral rights are reserved to a landlord, under Article 11 I doubt very much if the State has any control or any possession, because the phrase "valid private rights subsisting" will, I think, very definitely take out such mines and minerals from the possession of the State. In that case, the landlord would not have any interest in looking for 25 per cent. royalties because he would have the whole thing under his own control and could demand what he pleased, subject to the possibility of his being affected by a later section of this Bill which deals with non-State mines and minerals. The Deputy also made a second case—the case of the land being sold and the rights not reserved to the landlord. I do not know how that sale would have been effected. If the rights were neither reserved to the landlord nor to the State, with some rights still subsisting in the landlord, then, again, I do not see how the landlord is coming in to deal with things which are ordinarily known as minerals, not sand, gravel, stone or clay. Where a sale had been made under any of the Land Purchase Acts, then the Land Commission generally became possessed of the minerals. In that case, the law was—we propose to keep the law as it is—that where there was disposal afterwards of the mineral rights the landlord got 25 per cent. We propose to carry that into the Act of 1923. The 1923 Act said that there would be given to the landlord such percentage as would be afterwards determined by the Oireachtas. This is the determination we now propose. The equities of that 25 per cent. can be gone into in Committee.

The other and bigger point raised was raised by Deputy Derrig. It is a point I should like to counter right at the start. Deputy Carney went somewhat on the same lines. Deputy Derrig has the view that this Mining Board should be given power to prospect and make borings. That is not the function we associate with the Board. The function we associate with the Board is that of determining what legal rights there are in or about certain things, valuing these and assessing sums of money in consideration for their passing. That is the main function of the Board. If we were to adopt the other scheme it would not be done in a Bill of this sort. That would be dealt with in a Bill for the mineral development of the country under State auspices. We would set up a Board, equip it with funds for the purpose of obtaining extensive drilling and boring machinery, set them to prospect and, when we went that length, why should we not ask the Board finally to develop? What we aim at here is the getting of development in an ordinary, commercial way. There is quite an amount of information at the disposal of those who would be likely to be interested in development here. There is quite a good geological survey which is accessible and which has not been by any means made use of up to the point it should have been made use of. It is ready and accessible to anybody who likes to avail himself of it. We are not thinking of a Board equipped with money and machinery for the purpose of getting out particulars to entice commercial people to come along and develop. The Deputy says that the geological survey information, however good it may be, may prove to be fruitless in connection with a commercial proposition. It is for the commercial men to make up their minds on that. They get here, if they are not absolutely certain, the ordinary prospecting lease which is limited to two years. So far as the experience of other countries has gone, that seems to be sufficient for the purpose. If that is not sufficient, they can get another prospecting lease. There is no difficulty about that. They can get themselves established on the grounds, freedom to work under the ordinary conditions, and they can make up their own minds whether there is sufficient prospect of commercial success to make them enter upon a lease under whatever conditions they would like to establish in relation to that bit of property. Deputy Carney regarded this Board as a sort of geological survey. There has been a geological survey going on for years. The officials in connection with that survey have not had any difficulty in getting information for the purpose of that survey. We do not think of that body equipped with the very expensive machinery that would be required for the purpose of getting out all the data that a commercial man would require before he would begin his work. It has been doing its work in a very efficient way for years and doing it without any necessity for this compulsory right of entering land which the Deputy wanted to have given to them.

Deputy Wolfe's two points are distinctly Committee points and can be made in Committee. There was no intention to degrade one branch of the profession in comparison with another. If the Deputy moves an amendment, we will be able to meet him. The point as to the definition is much more serious, and I would like to have the Deputy's amendment sent in so that it could be considered. The definition goes to the root of the whole thing. Although the definition to which the Deputy referred is only a definition for the purposes of Parts 4, 5 and 8, the question of definition does run right through the whole thing and may have to be attended to in a better way. In so far as Part 3 is concerned, there we are founding ourselves upon Article 11 of the Constitution, and Article 11 uses the word "mineral" without any definition. If we come to define, we may, by the definition, be either limiting the mineral rights acquired by the State or other people or unnecessarily extending them. I am sure the Deputy will bear that in mind when he is putting in his amendment.

As far as the last two speakers are concerned, I cannot make up my mind upon the point raised by Deputy Goulding. The whole thing would seem to turn on the question: is lime a mineral for the purpose of this Act? The Deputy had better consider that, and if he thinks it is not and should be met, he can put down an amendment. Similarly, with regard to the point raised by Deputy Everett. The case there is one of minerals not being worked and no possibility of their being worked because, according to the Deputy's statement, extraordinarily high royalties are asked. It is for the Deputy to consider whether that situation could be brought inside the scope of section 17 (4). That is a case where minerals are not being worked or are not being worked efficiently and no satisfactory reason is shown by the person having an interest therein for not working such minerals.

Limestone is considered a mineral—not lime.

Then let us take it as limestone. The Deputy will have to consider that point on his own, and if the Bill is not satisfactory I should like to see the amendment he brings in. Deputy Lemass said this Bill ought to be supported only on the understanding that the powers I get will be used in a vigorous way. What powers do I get? I get powers which provide that when people make applications to me for leases, leases may be given with regard to State mines or minerals. With regard to minerals not in State possession, where people make application, I may grant them certain rights or ancillary rights. I do not know whether the Deputy means by saying that I should use my powers vigorously that I should go out on the highways and bye-ways and get people to make application to me. I certainly shall not promise that. There are ways of encouraging mineral development, but I do not think that the proper way is to have, as Deputy Derrig thought, a Board set up by the State, everything got ready for the commercial man and the fruits of the commercial development left to the commercial man or that when the Minister is empowered to grant leases of State property or to grant rights in respect of non-State property, he should be expected not alone to do this but to look for people to act as lessees.

You could go so far as to advertise that these facilities were available.

I think the Deputy said I was to use my powers ruthlessly. We will see by the amendments he puts down what extra drive he wants from the Department with regard to the use of those powers. A lot of the other matters that he referred to are distinctly Committee points.

May I ask a question in connection with Section 29, "Grant of restrictions on working minerals required for support." Sub-section 4 states: "Whenever a right to enforce restrictions is vested in any person by virtue of this section, compensation ...." Does that mean that a person who claims that his house or mill would be affected by the working of the minerals under it would be compelled to pay compensation to the person who would be working the minerals if that restrictive right had not been in force.

I think that is what it means, and I think it is proper; however, it is a Committee point.

Before going to the Committee I wanted to see if there could possibly be any other meaning of it.

I think it is quite right. I do not think there is anything wrong with the draft; it carries out the intention. The Deputy may disagree with the intention.

Question—"That the Bill be read a Second Time"—put, and agreed to.

I propose to take the Committee Stage next Wednesday.

I think that is too soon.

A Bill which was brought before the House on 24th June and about which the Deputy has been complaining of delay! Now he has not his amendments thought out and ready to be put down within a week.

When the Minister has circulated all the other Bills he has got a First Reading for he will have plenty to occupy the time of the House.

In the absence of these Bills this is what the Deputy has to concentrate on.

I propose to ask the Minister for another week.

Another week?

Is the Minister aware that under the rules of the House these amendments have to be got in by Saturday?

I am prepared to take this this day fortnight if the Deputy is prepared to recognise that in between this there may be no business of the House to go on with.

No business of the House?

If the Minister is inviting us to supply the deficiency we will try to do it.

I would much rather the Deputy concentrated on the Bill, the delay in which he has been complaining about, and for which he wants a speedy passage through the two Houses. Let him concentrate on it.

I think it is ridiculous if not stupid of the Minister to be trying to rush a Bill with as many clauses as that Bill. It is the Minister's colossal impudence and nothing else. We know it. He has been six years concocting that Bill in his department and then he wishes the Dáil to convenience him in rushing through everything inside a week. There are three days to put down amendments. Even though the Bill has been issued since June last has the Minister's Department been considering it since June or has anybody else? The House has been given a holiday by the Government of three months. I do not think anybody during these three months paid much attention to the Mines and Minerals Bill, the Minister no more than anybody else. A week or two before the Dáil sat everybody started to look at the Bills. I presume Deputy Lemass did, and I certainly did. In a Bill with over 100 clauses it is rather stupid to think that amendments should be put down inside a week.

After the very conciliatory attitude adopted by Deputy O'Kelly I must yield. I will say Thursday week.

Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 29th October.
Top
Share