Twenty-Seventh Report of the Committee of Selection. - Mines and Minerals Bill, 1931—Committee.
(1) In this Act—
the expression "the Minister" means the Minister for Industry and Commerce;
the expression "exclusive mining right" means the exclusive right of mining and taking minerals and digging and searching for minerals; the word "rent" includes any periodical payment in the nature of rent;
the expression "land purchase annuity" menas a land purchase annuity payable under the Land Purchase Acts to the Irish Land Commission;
the word "inspector" includes any person authorised in writing (either generally or for a special purpose) by the Minister to exercise all or any of the powers or perform any of the duties conferred or imposed on an inspector by this Act;
the expression "prescribed" means prescribed by the Minister by regulations made under this Act.
(2) In parts IV, V and VIII of this Act—
the expression "minerals" includes all minerals and substances in or under land obtainable by underground or surface working.
I move amendment 1:
In sub-section (2), line 39, to add after the word "working" the words "but shall not include sand or gravel used or intended to be used solely for the purpose of the building or erection or repairing of houses or buildings or for the construction, repairing or maintenance of roads in Saorstát Eireann, and shall not include turf, bogwood, or other bog stuffs."
This amendment refers to the definition of minerals, which is a very troublesome question. I want to congratulate the Minister, who has given the widest possible definition to what minerals mean. Had he not done so it would have been impossible, in my opinion, to put this Bill into effect. I do think, however, that the definition is drawn a little too wide. Instead of narrowing it, I would make it subject to the limitations set out in the amendment. The amendment will prevent turbary being declared a mineral and it will prevent stones drawn for the purpose of roads or buildings in this country, and in this country only, being declared minerals. I ask the Minister, if he is satisfied that the amendment is necessary, not to make the limitation any wider than I have drawn it, because there is in the country, particularly in my constituency, a very large and increasing industry of producing road material for other countries. That industry cannot be made of any use unless the Minister's definition as drawn stands. I suggest to the Minister that perhaps my amendment may be necessary, but if he does not think it necessary I am willing to withdraw it, because the definition should be drawn in the broadest terms.
The amendment proposes to limit the definition in the way described by the Deputy. The amendment refers to Parts IV, V and VIII of the Bill and not to the part which deals with State mines and minerals. In Part IV, which is the part really affected by the amendment, I should like to point out that the advantages given are advantages given to the owners of minerals against people who are preventing the owners working these minerals, except in one particular, that referred to in Section 17 (4). To my mind there is no great case for limiting the advantages which an owner may get, even in the substances to which the Deputy referred, "sand or gravel used or intended to be used solely for the purpose of the building or erection or repairing of houses or buildings or for the construction, repairing or maintenance of roads" and even turf, bogwood or other bog stuffs. I do not see why the owner of these things, if he finds a handicap upon him by any of the things set out in Section 17, should not have the rights and advantages that we give him with regard to the working of these things as well as the owners of other minerals. I would point out also to the Deputy that there is also a very big number of limitations even in that sub-section (4). Supposing the definition included all the things which the Deputy seeks to exclude, there is still a very big number of limitations before these advantages can be given. There has to be satisfaction that the thing is necessary in the public interest. There has to be notice. A person can apply for compensation, and there are special things referred to in the definition section. For instance, Section 19 states: "Neither a mining right nor an ancillary right shall be granted unless it is shown that it is not reasonably practical to obtain such right by private arrangement for any of the following reasons." There is a variety of clauses following. I have no very strong view against the amendment, but I certainly have no strong point of view in favour of it. On the whole, I think it would be better to leave the scope as wide as possible seeing that we are looking for advantages for the owners of certain minerals, and we do put certain limitations in the carrying out of the terms of the Act to see that no injustice will be done and that compensation will be paid. I should prefer, if the Deputy has no strong objection, that the section should be left as it is in its widest form.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
(1) If for the purposes of this Act any question arises—
(a) as to whether an exclusive mining right has before the passing of this Act been reserved to the Irish Land Commission under section 13 of the Irish Land Act. 1903, and if so reserved, as to whether such right has been purchased or disposed of by the Irish Land Commission in accordance with law, and, if so disposed of, the nature and extent of such disposition, or
(b) as to whether an exclusive mining right, has on or after the passing of this Act been vested in Saorstát Eireann under Section 13 of the Irish Land Act, 1903 as amended by this Act, or
(c) as to whether an exclusive mining right has been vested in Saorstát Eireann under Section 45 of the Irish Land Act, 1923 (No. 42 of 1923).
the Minister may refer such question to the Irish Land Commission exclusive of the Judical Commissioner for their determination.
(4) The Irish Land Commission may make rules regulating proceedings before the Irish Land Commission and appeals to the Judicial Commissioner under this section.
I move amendment 2:
In sub-section (1), page 4, to add after paragraph (c) a new paragraph as follows:—
"(d) as to whether any particular substance can be mined and taken under any particular such mining right as is mentioned in any of the foregoing paragraphs of this sub-section."
The amendment adds to the points that may be referred to the Land Commission and eventually to the Judical Commissioner, these words "as to whether any particular substance can be mined and taken under any particular such mining right as is mentioned in any of the foregoing paragraphs of this sub-section." As the section stands at present, the Judicial Commissioner would have to decide simply whether or not there was an exclusive mining right. It seems to us, on reconsideration, that the point which would most ordinarily arise for consideration was not the large question of whether or not there is an exclusive mining right which can be determined in this way, but as to whether the particular substance was or was not covered by an existing exclusive mining right where that was shown to be in existence, and we therefore want to be enabled to put before the Land Commission, in the first instance, and the Judicial Commissioner eventually, such a point as this—whether a particular substance could be mined under a mining right.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 3.
In sub-section (1), line 39, to delete the word "may" and substitute the word "shall."
As the Minister stated, this section relates to the determination of questions in relation to exclusive mining rights and provides that the Minister may refer such questions to the Land Commission exclusive of the Judicial Commissioner for determination with an appeal to the Judicial Commissioner. I propose to delete the word "may" and substitute "shall," so that any such question which arises must be referred by the Minister to the Land Commission for determination. Otherwise, it seems to me that the Minister is taking to himself the power to determine this question without any judicial examination at all and without necessarily having to give any reasons for his decision.
I can understand that the purpose of inserting the word "may" in that sub-section was to erect a barrier against a trivial question being referred to the Land Commission, but I think that it is our duty to safeguard the interests of citizens in this matter, and even if a trivial question is occasionally brought to the Land Commission for determination, it is much better that that should be so than that there should be even a possibility of injustice being done as might possibly be done if this section remained unamended. There is no restriction upon a person taking a case to a court provided he is prepared to pay the costs involved. Similarly, we think that there should be no impediment to a person having a question brought for determination to the Land Commission, if he is prepared to pay the costs involved. I think that giving the Minister this power to determine what question may or may not be referred to the Land Commission for settlement is introducing a new principle in our law and one to which we should be very slow to agree. I have said that injustice may be done. It is quite obvious that a Minister, occupied with the concerns of a Department, may not be in a position to give any such questions which come before him the same consideration which they would get from the Land Commission and might act hastily or unjustly and, consequently, inflict a hardship upon persons who had a question raised and who wish to have it determined properly.
The Deputy takes up a different attitude on this section from that which he took on Second Reading. His attitude on Second Reading was that in order to shirk putting any obligations on myself he imagined me going through this Bill as it came from the draftsman and carefully scoring out the word "shall" everywhere it appeared and inserting the word "may." Imbued with the other feeling, the Deputy has now gone through the Bill to find out where he can substitute "shall" for "may," and he has discovered one instance only.
I agree that it was a hopeless job.
He has probably lit upon the most hopeless point on which an amendment could be framed. "May" as a matter of fact, there does, in 99 cases out of 100, mean "shall." It is specially limited to "may" because frivolous objections, clearly obstructive objections, may be made under a later section with regard to the ancillary rights, and it seemed to us that it would be absurd to have a clearly obstructive objection allowed permitting the holding up of certain action which might otherwise be taken. Any question that really is a question for judicial determination must be referred, even under the section as it stands, to the Land Commission, and thereafter to the Judicial Commissioner, and thereafter, on appeal, to the Supreme Court, but we consider that there ought to be power in the Department to say, and to attempt to prove, to people who make objection that certain objections put forward are clearly frivolous and trivial and only put forward from the point of view of obstruction. We think that there is the possibility that it may impede the working of the whole legislation if that be changed. As far as the drafting is concerned, it has been explained to me by the people who have had most to do with the drafting of this, that the word "may" in fact does import an obligation, except in what would be described as a clearly frivolous pretext, and there we think there should not be a reference.
Surely the Minister understands that when he uses the phrase "put forward a clearly frivolous objection" he is begging the whole question. It means an objection which is clearly frivolous to him. But the person making the objection may not regard it as frivolous or trivial and has, I think, a right to have his objection heard. The Minister is taking to himself the right to determine that question of frivolous or trivial and to determine it without being under any obligation to give any reason for his decision. That is, in our view, a mistaken principle to introduce in a Bill. If it is intended that the Minister shall refer these questions to the Land Commission in 99 out of 100 cases, then the hundredth case is worth taking a little trouble over in order to prevent the insertion of a dangerous principle.
We do not regard the principle as a dangerous one. It is a principle imported into a great number of Bills, that there is that slight discretion left to Ministers in pretty nearly every department with regard to matters of this kind. We do not want to introduce this new principle that in every case there must be a reference to a particular judicial body. We do not want to have that principle introduced, and that is why the amendment seems to be unnecessary.
Would the Minister consider amending the section in the manner in which he suggests it is going to operate, that the Minister shall refer unless he is satisfied that the objection is frivolous or trivial?
If the Deputy put down an amendment to that effect it would be a different thing.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Question proposed:—"That Section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Should not the word "may" in sub-section (4) be "shall"?
Surely not. They will not make them unless they are required.
If there are going to be proceedings before the Land Commission it is necessary that there should be rules regulating the procedure, and what would be the position if the Land Commission fails to make rules?
We might have to amend the Act then.
Why put yourself under that obligation?
Because we do not believe the Land Commission would fail to do it.
Why is the Minister persisting in keeping in the word "may" there if he intends it to be "shall"?
I asked my draftsman as to the difference between "may" and "shall" in that sentence and he gave me evidence that there is no difference.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
(1) In this Act the expression "State mines and minerals" means—
(a) in relation to any mines and minerals which at the date of the passing of this Act belong, by virtue of Article 11 of the Constitution or otherwise, to Saorstát Eireann, such mines and minerals;
(b) in relation to any mines and minerals which on or after the passing of this Act become, by any means, vested in Saorstát Eireann, such mines and minerals as on and from the date of such vesting.
I move amendment 4:—
In page 5 to add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(3) In sub-section (1) of this section the word ‘minerals' includes all minerals and substances in or under land obtainable by underground or surface working."
We want really by reason of this amendment to avoid definition again. In the Constitution the term used is minerals. We want to give that the widest possible definition lest by defining it in a narrow way we fail to bring within the scope of the measure anything which may come under Article 11 of the Constitution. We do not determine here what does come under Article 11, but we must have this definition for the purpose of this section so widely framed that the net is flung as widely as possible. There has been no definition of what the term "minerals" means in Article 11 of the Constitution, and I do not pretend to define it here, but we do want to have a definition of minerals in this, so wide that it will catch anything which may possibly come within the term as used in Article 11. What will come in will be a matter which will afterwards fall to be decided in a particular case in the manner described.
This brings the definition given in sub-section (1) in relation to parts IV, V and VIII of the Bill into relation with State mines and minerals as well. Is there not a possibility of some application in that connection in relation to turbary, sand and things of that kind, if the State claims that it has taken over the exclusive right in relation to these things on land acquired by the Land Commission under the Land Act?
That is quite right in a sense, but that point will be determined not by this Bill, but on a consideration of Article 11 of the Constitution. Supposing a case falls for consideration and it is a matter whether turf is a mineral which has passed over to the State, that will be determined not under this Bill, but under Article 11 of the Constitution. We want to leave the thing as wide as possible. If we limit it, as we do limit it here by not putting in this amendment, by implication certain things are excluded, and if under Article 11 it is decided that turf has passed over to the State then we have not made the provision that is required under Article 11 for the disposal of that property. We must, therefore, make this, if necessary, even if we do give a definition of what minerals mean under Article 11. It would be almost our duty to see that this was somewhat wider so as to include everything. This does not determine cases. It is not under this Bill that cases will be determined. All this Bill will determine is whether proper disposal has been made of something which under Article 11 has been found to be under the State's control.
Supposing disposal was made of something which was afterwards determined not to be a mineral under Article 11?
That question will arise the moment we try to dispose of it, or else somebody by neglect will lose his rights.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 5.
(1) There shall be established a board to be known as the Mining Board (in this Act referred to as the Board) consisting of a chairman and two ordinary members to fulfil the functions assigned to it by this Act.
(2) The chairman of the Board shall be a practising barrister of at least ten years' standing, and one of the ordinary members shall be a person who is a member of the panel of official arbitrators appointed under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, as amended by the Acquisition of Land (Reference Committee) Act, 1925 (No. 22 of 1925), and the other ordinary member shall be an officer of the Minister.
(3) Every member of the Board shall be appointed by the Minister for such period as he thinks fit and may be removed from office by the Minister and may resign his office at any time.
(4) There may be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas to any member of the Board such fees or remuneration and expenses as the Minister for Finance may determine.
(5) If any member of the Board is for any reason temporarily unable to attend the sittings of the Board, the Minister may appoint another person to act temporarily during such inability of such member as a member of the Board, but no person shall be appointed to act as a member of the Board under this sub-section unless he possesses the qualifications required by sub-section (2) of this section to be possessed by the member of the Board in place of whom such person is so temporarily appointed.
I move amendment 5:—
In sub-section (2), line 13, to add after the word "barrister" the words "or practising solicitor."
I am quite sure this was a pure omission on the Minister's part. I do not ask to take away in any way the selection from the responsible Minister or from the Executive Council. As it is, they are going to make a precedent in the matter of the Mines and Minerals Board, and all I ask them to say is, that a solicitor is equally qualified with a barrister.
I think the Minister should explain why he has provided that only a practising barrister is to be appointed as chairman of the Board. Why should he cut out the various barristers who are employed in the different Civil Service Departments? Take the barristers who are at present employed as temporary examiners of Title. Surely their work would better fit them for the position of chairman of this Board than any work they could be doing in the courts. Or, again, take the work they might be doing under, say, the Town Tenants Act or the Road Traffic Act. Would not that be the sort of thing that barristers would be having experience of in the courts? I think the Government has been kind enough already to the practising barristers in presenting them this year with the Town Tenants Bill and the Road Traffic Bill. Certainly, the Town Tenants Bill is a boon that the barristers do not get in many years. I think reserving this work to the practising barristers is altogether unnecessary, and the Minister should give an explanation. There are a great many barristers working in State Departments just now whose work would be a better training for this position than the ordinary work of a barrister in the courts.
Before the Minister replies, I would like to say this: I do not think there is room in any judicial position in this country at present for any non-practising solicitor or non-practising barrister. You must get the man who knows his job. If the Deputy suggests that these positions should be open to a man who does not know his job, then I am against that.
No. I make no such suggestion.
Mr. Wolfe
The man who is a non-practising barrister does not know his job. To know his job he must be a working man like the rest of us.
I am prepared to accept the amendment as put down by Deputy Wolfe. I may say that that phrase was used here limiting the position to a practising barrister for a special reason. I hope I do not incur any odium from the solicitors' profession in that matter. The reason we put in this section was that we thought that the sort of case that would arise would be of the type of case that a solicitor would himself refer to counsel. That was the reason why we did not put in a solicitor. At any rate the potentialities of the amendment can be accepted. The same cannot be said of the amendment suggested by Deputy Moore. A non-practising barrister could not be segregated out and made chairman of this Board. But there are many varieties of non-practising barristers and well there may be. Persons in certain departments of Government who have legal qualifications are very expert so far as these qualifications go, but it is doubtful, if they have not been in the ordinary melee of practice, if they have not come up against the ordinary decisions and have not a proper run of case law, that they would be fully conversant with the type of case that would fall within this. Hence it is that we put in the term "practising barrister." I do not know if the Deputy is moving that. If he does, I think I will have to join with Deputy Wolfe in resisting him. I will accept Deputy Wolfe, that is to say, "a practising barrister or solicitor."
Having made my protest against the excessive favour shown to the practising barristers against others, I do not wish to press the amendment.
Amendment 5 agreed to.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
Before we pass from this section I would like to explain why it is that all these amendments that the Minister was anticipating have not been produced. The Board to be established under this Act is really an Advisory Board and I would like to have the Dáil consider whether that is the best type of Board that should be established. The Minister's conceptions are so deeply embodied in the Bill that I find it extraordinarily difficult to extract them and to substitute something else for them. I think that the Dáil should consider whether it would not be better to establish a Board which would have, subject to this Bill, control of the leasing of State mines and minerals and of the conceding of mining rights established by this Bill. The Board which will be established here will have no power to make a decision of its own except under Part 7 in relation to compensation. It has no rights defined in the Bill at all in relation to State mines or exclusive State mining rights. In relation to non-State mines and mining rights its powers are purely advisory. The Minister refers the question to the Board; he receives their recommendations and then does what he likes in each case.
It may be that there is good reason for that type of machinery, but it seems to me that the Dáil should examine whether or not it would be preferable to have a board established in accordance with a definite plan subject to definite legal restriction, empowered to act without the veto of the Minister in matters referred to in this Bill. Such a board might be able to embody as part of its work the general matter of the development of our mineral resources. We should take steps to secure that it would be constituted in the manner suggested here. I would like to know if the Minister would give us any indication of the considerations which induced him to set up this type of machinery rather than that which I have indicated.
The Deputy has not explained himself very well. He put down an amendment which we will come to in a moment which makes the board less effective than it is under the Bill as it stands. I propose at any rate to have a board carrying out certain judicial functions with regard to compensation, and acting in an advisory capacity with regard to certain other matters, as to whether or not the leases should be made, the terms on which they should be made, and so on. I propose after the report of such a board has been received that leases of State rights should be made by myself. The Deputy proposes that it be done by the board. But the board could make recommendations to the Minister. If the Minister acts upon it he will lay it before the Dáil and the Dáil will pass its judgment upon it.
What is the board to do with State land?
It has nothing at the moment whatever to do with it. It has to do with certain matters in connection with compensation. The Deputy wants to have this report even of less effect.
Can we not discuss that on the amendment when it arises?
The Deputy wants to put it a further remove from actuality or effect. The Minister is to make a report on a lease and that report is to come before the House. The Deputy is putting it further away from having any such effect as I propose. At any rate, I propose this machinery because it seems to me that a doubt would arise as to whether or not it would fit the board which would act on its own disposing of property in accordance with regulations laid down by the Oireachtas. At any rate if such a proposal was made by any person whom I took into consultation, when I was thinking of machinery for these purposes and in any of the talk in this House with regard to the mines and minerals in the country, there was never any suggestion made that it should be given for final disposal to a board which this House would simply set up and leave free to grant leases as and when it pleases. We think in a matter of property of this type where you are definitely interfering with private property that there should be responsibility in a person who is exercising that responsibility directly and exercising it with full knowledge of what his responsibility is. We think as a technical matter that that person ought to have the benefit of the advice of certain people of the type described here, one a practising barrister who would advise on a legal question and one of the ordinary officials appointed under the Acquisition of Land Act, 1919, because there are some questions which will arise for the other person, a public officer in my own Department, and it is not very clear who is to deal with mines and minerals. On that body a technical and competent person chosen from that point of view and reporting to the Minister who takes the ultimate responsibility is much better than picking a board as the Deputy has in his later amendment and having the Minister receiving them and having the Dáil bargaining for a number of days as to whether a particular lease should be granted or another one should be taken or alternatively that the board should be appointed and get complete responsibility. This is the safer way and attaches responsibility in the first instance to the political head of the Department concerned.
Sub-section (4) provides that there should be paid as the fees or remuneration of the members of the board such fees or remuneration or expenses as the Minister for Finance may determine. Is it intended that the members of the board shall be paid or that they shall be merely honorary members?
I would like to say that there was a prospect of getting a body like this without fees, but I do not think there is any possibility of that. I might be forced to pay fees certainly to some of the members of this board.
Is the Minister satisfied that under that section he is taking power to pay the substitute members. Sub-section (5) provides that substitute members should be appointed. It occurs to me judging from the provisions that payment may be made to ordinary members. Judging from the position of that sub-section and the fact that there is no mention in connection with sub-section (5) I think that they also may receive remuneration and that he is not taking power, it might be argued, to pay substitute members.
I do not know that much argument can be founded on the number of the clauses. If it is so I shall see whether changing (4) to (5) and (5) to (4) will effect the purpose. If the Deputies look at No. 4 they will see "there may be paid to any member of the board." The people in section (5) will act as members of the board. I think it comes within the definition. However it is a matter which will have to be looked into.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Is there any reason why the word "may" should be "shall."
There may be some things there is no necessity to make regulations for.
Sections 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
I move amendment 6:
Before Section 11 to insert a new section as follows:—
"(1) When the Minister proposes to make or grant a lease under this Act he shall lay before each House of the Oireachtas a statement showing the person to whom such lease is proposed to be made, the property proposed to be included in such lease, the rent, purchase money, or other payments (if any) proposed to be charged for such lease, and the covenants, conditions and agreements proposed to be inserted in such lease.
(2) No lease shall be made or granted under this Act until either—
(a) each House of the Oireachtas has by resolution authorised the making or granting of such lease with or without modification of any of the proposed provisions of such lease; or
(b) the expiration of whichever of the following periods shall be the longer, that is to say:—
(i) twenty-one days after the first day on which either House of the Oireachtas shall sit next after the statement in accordance with this section shall have been laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas; or
(ii) twelve days in which either House of the Oireachtas shall have sat after the said statement shall have been so laid before the Houses.
(3) When a resolution of either House of the Oireachtas authorises the making or granting of a lease under this Act subject to any modification of the proposed provisions of such lease, such lease shall not be granted save with and subject to such modification in its provisions."
This is the amendment which the Minister has already been criticising. In one connection the Minister's remarks are likely to be misleading. He talked of an application for a lease being referred to him by the Board and of a recommendation being received by the Board and of the matter then having to go to the Dáil if this amendment were passed. That, of course, is not what is provided for in the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill which indicates that the Minister shall consult the Board at all in relation to the lease of State mines or minerals. The Minister under Section 10 is entitled to act only in certain cases after consultation with the Minister for Finance, but on his own responsibility generally. It is difficult to see what are the considerations which make it advisable that there should be a different procedure in relation to the leasing of State mines than in the leasing of State lands. The new section which I propose to insert in the Bill is, as the Minister is aware, practically a redraft of the corresponding section of the State Lands Act. It was the Minister himself who proposed that whenever a lease of State lands was made such lease should not become effective until either a certain definite period had elapsed or a resolution had been passed by each House of the Oireachtas approving of that lease. I do not think that any difficulty arises in making similar provisions in relation to the leasing of State mines, and it is in fact desirable that there should be some means by which the Dáil could exercise a right of supervision over the leasing of such State property effected by the Minister. It is undesirable from many points of view that State property should be capable of being given away as is provided in Section 10 for ninety-nine years without any payment. The Minister considers that desirable without there existing any machinery whatever by which the members of the Dáil, if they consider such lease undesirable in the public interest, could have their opinions expressed and their views attended to.
The Minister appears to think that it is undersirable that leases made under this Act should be discussed here. Since I came into the Dáil I can only remember one occasion upon which a lease made under the State Lands Act was in fact discussed in the Dáil. Yet as the Deputies are aware, these leases are being made every day. There is hardly an Order Paper we receive that does not indicate that a new number of them have been laid on the Table for our inspection. In the vast majority of cases the lease is not questioned, but surely there should exist some provision for dealing with the exceptional case. If in the opinion of a particular Deputy or number of Deputies a mistake has been made and State property is being demised in a manner not in the public interest or in a manner open to criticism, I think that the Dáil should be very slow indeed to concede this considerable power to a Minister which that Minister can exercise without any check whatsoever, without safeguarding its own powers in some way and providing that in the exceptional cases which may arise a provision will be inserted empowering the Dáil to exercise some powers of effecting an amendment in a lease which it considers undersirable or of annulling that lease altogether.
The Deputy has stated that this amendment is taken from the State Lands Act. So it is. Because it is taken from that Act and because of the wrong analogy the Deputy tries to make between mines and minerals and the matters dealt with in the State Lands Act, I think the amendment will have to be rejected. This point was discussed in another setting with regard to the disposal of any patent right which a Minister might acquire. I think that is a much better analogy than the analogy of the State Lands Act. In the case of State lands, what is there to be disposed of? A piece of land the surface value of which is the only thing that need be taken into consideration or a house or building on which there can be ideas as to fair rent and fair price. But what falls for consideration in connection with a device the Minister may have taken over on behalf of the State under a certain Act or what falls for consideration in the case of mines and minerals? Most of the value lies in the discovery of some invention or in the discovery of something underneath the surface. There would be considerable hardship entailed if, when somebody came along and looked for a prospecting lease for a couple of years, basing his application for that on the fact that arising out of certain consideration he believed there was some sort of mineral deposit or oil to be found underneath the surface— if we promulgated that in the Dáil, giving away that individual's secret, the thing which he won by his own enterprise or by scientific investigation. We would have to put all that before the Dáil and leave the matter open possibly to later and better offers on the part of somebody who had not the same right as the original prospector. Because there is something concealed or hidden, in opposition to what is clear and obvious—it is not the case of a house or building or a piece of ground on which one could ordinarily set a value—this matter must be treated differently.
If there is any great squabbling between people for possession of a building or a piece of ground for ordinary purposes, that question might normally be left open to the House. What would fall for consideration there would be whether the proper value was being placed on the property. There would be nothing given away in the discussion in the Dáil as between one applicant and another. In this case, the whole foundation of a person's equities might be that by reason of using scientific material or by the possession of better scientific knowledge or by greater courage in prospecting, he had made a discovery. That discovery is to be revealed and other people will naturally be able to come in with better, because later, offers. Those better offers will be founded upon something which one individual has won for himself and which he ought to get the fruits of. We felt that there was going to be no development of mines or minerals if the person who foresaw development and had the data on which he grounded his opinion that there was development likely—if he was to have his experience canvassed here and the lease refused, although he might be first on the spot. There has to be responsibility given to somebody. There has to be trust reposed in somebody. The best thing is to let somebody who is taking responsibility for the matter—and it is a heavy responsibility—bear that responsibility without any hawking back and forward or bartering in the House and without revelation of all the antecedent circumstances. If there is any feeling that what the Minister does under this Act ought to be a little more clearly revealed, I would not object to a clause insisting on having, every year or six months, an account given to the House, through a printed table, as to the leases that have been made. But that ought to be after the event. If it is after the event, the point the Deputy has made and which he tries to secure in his amendment, will not be met at all. He wants to stop the making of the leases. The only thing we can do is to have notice given by the Minister, through the medium of a printed table placed in the library, as to what has happened during, say, the preceding six months. That, of course, must always be after the event.
I am prepared to agree that the Minister has made some case in respect of a prospecting lease. It would not be unreasonable, perhaps, to ask that particulars of a prospecting lease should be submitted to the Dáil, but if you take a lease of State mines or minerals for 99 years, the lease cannot come before the Dáil under this amendment until after it is made. It will not be discussed in the Dáil except some Deputy has very definite objections to it. The only data the Deputy will have will be the Minister's statement showing the person to whom such lease is proposed to be made, the property proposed to be included, the rent, purchase money or other payments proposed to be charged and the covenants, conditions and agreements proposed to be inserted in the lease. No revelation of industrial secrets is asked for there. The matter would not be raised at all unless there was some particular reason. If there is special reason in the mind of a particular Deputy why a lease binding the State for 99 years should not be made, some opportunity ought to be given to him to voice his objections. If the Bill goes through as it stands, the Minister can make that lease, which will be binding for the entire period covered by it. It will not be possible for the Dáil or for any subsequent Minister to have that lease revised or cancelled. I think it is undesirable that this power should be given to the Minister without the Dáil having any right to interfere, if it thinks that a mistake is being made.
Surely the Deputy is not so simple as to believe that his amendment means what he has just said. The amendment provides that the Minister when he proposes to make a grant or lease shall lay before each House a statement showing the person to whom the lease is to be made. If a real person is mentioned there, if there is no subterfuge and if a dummy is not put up; if it is known that a particular person is interested in a particular mine or mineral, does not that call attention to the fact that the mineral or mine is to be found in a particular spot. The person may be hidden. There may be a dummy leaseholder under an arrangement made between that person and the real person. But, according to the amendment, the statement is to show the property proposed to be included in such lease, the rent, purchase money or other payments proposed to be charged. What debate is going to take place except on the point as to whether the rent or other payments are proper? If they are proper, they are proper for what? That question will have to be answered. Is there to be a revelation of what the applicant will get by reason of developing this piece of ground? If there is going to be a proper discussion, the entire information must come out.
What debate does the Deputy say could arise out of a statement as to "the covenants, conditions and agreements proposed to be inserted in such lease"? If rent is charged at all and if it is raised, the Minister will have to reply and he will have to show that development is likely. Deputies will say "the land is value for more by reason of the development likely to occur." In the course of that discussion, if the discussion is real at all, the whole facts will have to come out. Otherwise the Deputy's amendment is only a dummy amendment. If we are to get any opinion as to whether the House should assent to or refuse a proposed lease, it is essential that the House should know what the proposed lease is about, what is supposed to be under the property and why the rent should be fixed at such a figure. If these questions are answered, the whole question will be opened up. Trading of any kind by the method of a lease being laid before this House, not to be passed unless there is a vote of acceptance—trading in respect of anything under that method would be impossible. When you come to a matter which must be secret, such as mines and minerals—a lot of matters material to such a discussion must be concerned with a discovery somebody has made and is trying to keep the fruits of—trading under these circumstances will obviously be impossible. Under the amendment, I do not believe there would be any mineral development. I do not know that any great mineral development is likely under the present scheme, but it gets its best chance under the scheme we propose. The other scheme would stop any development.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Progress reported. Committee to sit again to-morrow.
