Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 20 Nov 1931

Vol. 40 No. 15

Mines and Minerals Bill, 1931—Committee—(Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment 6.

Mr. Lemass

We discussed this amendment at some length last night so that it is not necessary again to go into the various points raised. I merely want to say that I remain entirely unconvinced by the Minister's arguments. If I thought that the insertion of this amendment requiring that particulars of leases of State mines and minerals made by the Minister should be furnished to the Dáil would impede the mineral developments of the country or impose any undue hardship upon persons obtaining such leases I would not propose the amendment, but I cannot see how such impediment or hardship could arise. I agree that the Minister made a point worthy of consideration in relation to prospecting leases and I am prepared to alter the amendment so as to ensure that particulars of such prospecting leases should not be furnished to the Dáil. But in the case of ordinary leases for 99 years made by the Minister in consideration of a payment, or no payment as the case may be, we think the procedure laid down in the State Lands Act should apply. The Minister indicated that there might be some possibility of industrial information leaking out which would be of value to the commercial rivals of the persons seeking the lease. I cannot see that there is any real danger of that happening at all. I take it that the matter of any particular lease would not be raised in the House unless it happened that two or more persons were in competition for the purpose of securing the lease and that it was revealed that the lease was given to a particular person on terms less favourable to the State than other persons were proposing to offer or that in some other manner it should be questioned. If that should happen it seems to us desirable that before a lease is made and State property alienated an opportunity should be given to the Dáil to question, if it so desired, the action of the Minister and to secure from him an explanation as to his conduct.

It is altogether undesirable that State property which may be of considerable value should be leased by the Minister for a long period on his own initiative and without any other body having any power of amendment or annulment. As I said last night the lease made would be binding upon the whole State or upon any future Government of the State until it expired and could not be altered no matter what mistake was made in framing it or how unfavourable it was to the State. I therefore strongly urge the Minister to reconsider his position and to accept my amendment which is in the form of the relevant section of the State Lands Act and which merely requires that certain particulars of such leases should be submitted to the Dáil and that they should not come into operation until the expiration of 21 sitting days or until a resolution is passed by both Houses. The Minister's alternative suggestion that he should every six months or twelve months furnish to the Dáil particulars of the leases made, while of some value, obviously does not meet the case I have in mind. I think that suggestion might be embodied in the Bill if the Minister does not accept this amendment but I suggest as preferable the procedure in my amendment.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. McGilligan)

I want to summarise what I said last night in regard to this amendment because nothing that the Deputy has said has caused me to change my attitude to the amendment. The Deputy has indicated one possible amendment of his own suggestion, and that is in regard to the prospecting leases which makes the situation worse. In other words, the Deputy would allow the Minister to give the two years take note or prospecting lease, and when somebody had got a prospecting lease, and developed, from information at his disposal, then when the real lease comes to be made, it will have to be brought before the House and debated backward and forward. The prospecting lease is the only one which can be given. The other lease, which will be founded upon the prospecting lease, has to come up here.

Mr. Lemass

Not necessarily.

Mr. McGilligan

If there is to be any lease longer than the prospecting lease, that has to come up here, as the prospecting lease, ordinarily, will only be for a very limited period. There will be something else grafted upon it —the ordinary 99 years lease—and that will come up here and the relevant infromation that the Dáil will be entitled to ask for is what was discovered by reason of the prospecting lease, so that a man when he sees himself getting a prospecting lease, sees that immediately, unless the thing is a failure, and he does not want to go on with it, he will have to subject himself to the ordinary inquisition here if there is somebody else running for that lease. Of course there will be always somebody running for it. If you give notice that a lease is about to be made, affecting pieces of ground, to somebody who is interested, immediately there will be speculators who will certainly be able to worm out by questions through Deputies what is the particular substance that is being looked for. The whole fruits of the first man's endeavour will be thrown open to a competitor who comes in here for the purpose of receiving information. He will give a little bit extra if he can get a bargain. He will, at any rate, worsen the bargain for the first man, and that is the system under which trade is to be done.

No one would look at such a prospecting lease. They will go in completely and entirely for a long lease and will be able to put up the case better than in the other instance that they are working in the dark, that they have no great information about the whole thing and they will look for the main lease. The Deputy says there is no reason why there should be any revelation. Unless this is a dummy amendment, meant only to uphold a certain point of view, without any real substance backing that point of view, the revelation must be made. Look at the particulars the Deputy speaks of:

"When the Minister proposes to make or grant a lease under this Act he shall lay before each House of the Oireachtas a statements 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."

Surely if there is to be any substance in this thing, if there is going to be anything in the possibility of a debate, there can only be a debate when there is revelation. If there is to be no revelation the amendment is not any good. The Deputy says his foundation for this amendment is that the Minister must be questioned as to whether he has given away any valuable State property. Surely to know the value of the property you must know what is the substance. To know whether it is given away you must be able to relate purchase price to the value. If Deputies are to criticise whether the Minister has given away State property, and whether it was valuable, they must get the relation between the price charged and the substance to be developed. If that is brought out there must be a revelation of what the would-be developer has in mind. There is going to be no trading in that type of State property under these conditions. It is bad enough to have the House considering a lease say for a building, or a piece of land. But when you come to this where at the back of this prospecting lease there must be some element of secrecy, and depending upon the secrecy is the man's security that what he has discovered is not going to be revealed to all and sundry. But here after a period of 21 days questions could be prompted, and put up, to Deputies, for them to get information so that the debate might be made a real one—that it would ostensibly be for a parliamentary purpose—but in the background there would be somebody trying to get it instead of the first comer who had been vigilant and enterprising. This amendment would never allow any development of this type of property.

Mr. Lemass

My answer is that if this amendment is passed and the power conferred of bringing these matters up before the Dáil that power would never be used except in exceptional cases. As far as I know in the thousands of leases made under the State Lands Act only one was ever questioned.

Mr. McGilligan

I have always objected to the analogy of the State Lands Act. There is nothing secret about that. Here the thing is flashed upon the Dáil because a lease is indicated. The Deputy speaks of exceptional circumstances. Every case will be an exceptional case because Deputies will naturally not be in the know about any lease laid before the Dáil. What can they know about it from the particulars mentioned in the amendment? They must go on and inquire further, and once they do every case is bound to become an exception, because there will be someone in the background asking questions.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá: 36; Níl: 61.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Patrick.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Broderick, Henry.
• Buckley, Daniel.
• Colbert, James.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Davin, William.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Doyle, Edward.
• Fahy, Frank.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Goulding, John.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
• Houlihan, Patrick.
• Jordan, Stephen.
• Kent, William R.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• Maguire, Ben.
• Moore, Séamus.
• O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
• O'Kelly, Seán T.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Sexton, Martin.
• Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
• Smith, Patrick.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Francis C.

Níl

• Beckett, James Walter.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Blythe, Ernest.
• Bourke, Séamus A.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Brodrick, Seán.
• Carey, Edmund.
• Coburn, James.
• Cole, John James.
• Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Marget.
• Conlon, Martin.
• Connolly, Michael P.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Craig, Sir James.
• Crowley, James.
• Davis, Michael.
• Doherty, Eugene.
• Dolan, James N.
• Doyle, Peadar Seán.
• Duggan, Edmund John.
• Dwyer, James.
• Egan, Barry M.
• Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
• O'Connell, Richard.
• O'Connor, Bartholomew.
• O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Hanlon, John F.
• O'Mahony, The.
• O'Reilly, John J.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Reynolds, Patrick.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Good, John.
• Haslett, Alexander.
• Hassett, John J.
• Heffernan, Michael R.
• Hennessy, Thomas.
• Henry, Mark.
• Holohan, Richard.
• Kelly, Patrick Michael.
• Law, Hugh Alexander.
• Leonard, Patrick.
• Lynch, Finian.
• Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
• McDonogh, Martin.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Myles, James Sproule.
• Nally, Martin Michael.
• Roddy, Martin.
• Shaw, Patrick W.
• Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
• Thrift, William Edward.
• Tierney, Michael.
• Wolfe, George.
• Wolfe, Jasper Travers.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies G. Boland and Allen; Níl: Deputies Duggan and P. S. Doyle.

Amendment declared lost.

Section 11 agreed to.

Section 12 and 13 agreed to.

SECTION 14.

Where any exclusive State mining right, being either—

(a) an exclusive mining right reserved to the Irish Land Commission before the passing of this Act under sub-section (3) of section 13 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, or

(b) an exclusive mining right vested in Saorstát Eireann on or after the passing of this Act under the said sub-section (3) as amended by this Act, or

(c) any exclusive mining right vested in Saorstát Eireann under sub-section (5) of Section 45 of the Land Act, 1923 (No. 42 of 1923),

is demised under this Part of this Act, the person (in this section referred to as the former owner) who would have been entitled to such right if it had not been so reserved or vested shall (unless in the case of an exclusive mining right mentioned in paragraph (a) of this sub-section the right of the former owner was purchased by the Irish Land Commission under sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Irish Land Act, 1903), be entitled to be paid in the manner hereinafter by this section provided a sum equal to twenty-five per cent. of any rent, purchase money, or other payment received by the Minister under such demise after there has been deducted from such rent, purchase money, or other payment an amount equal to the amount (if any) expended by the Minister in ascertaining the value of such exclusive State mining right including the exercise of the right of entry and experimenting and in payment of the compensation (if any) and costs (if any) payable by the Minister under this Act consequential upon the exercise of such right of entry and experimenting and in payment of the expenses of collection and other administrative expenses in respect of such rent, purchase money or other payment.

Mr. Lemass

I move:

To add at the end of sub-section

(1) the words:-"provided that no such payment shall be made in respect of any exclusive State mining right where at the date of the reservation of such right to the Land Commission or its vesting in Soarstát Eireann the minerals in or under the land in respect of which such right is exercisable were not being worked or were not being worked efficiently."

It is proposed in this section that where an exclusive State mining right is leased to any person that the former owner of the land shall be entitled to be paid by the State 25 per cent. of any land purchase money or other payment received by the Minister under the lease. The amendment I propose is intended to provide that royalty of 25 per cent. shall not be paid to any former owner where at the date of the reservation of the mining right to the Land Commission or its vesting in Saorstát Eireann, the existence of minerals in or under the land concerned was not known to the former owners or that such minerals were not being worked efficiently by him. This section, in our opinion, raises a most important point of principle in the Bill. I do not know what reason can be advanced to justify the payment of a 25 per cent. royalty to the owner of an estate which was purchased by the Land Commission and who at the date of such purchase did not know and did not care whether or not there were minerals under the land.

If subsequent to that purchase and as a result of the initiative and enterprise of somebody else the existence of such minerals is discovered, there is, I think, some good case to be made in support of the proposal to give that 25 per cent. royalty to the former owner of the estate who knew that there were minerals upon that estate, and who had made or was making some attempt to work these minerals. That former owner knew that under the Land Acts he would be entitled to this 25 per cent. royalty. The purchase price would be affected accordingly, but if the owner did not know that there were any minerals on the land, or knowing that they were there did not attempt to work them, this proposal to give him 25 per cent. of the royalty in perpetuity is, in our opinion, preposterous. I do not know on what grounds the Minister will attempt to justify it. In our opinion it is an attempt to safeguard the interest of the landlord class to a ridiculous extent. If it can be shown that these landlords have an equitable claim to the payment of this money we will not oppose that claim but we are unable to see how that can be shown. I propose my amendment and I would seriously ask the Dáil to consider it because there is an important point of principle involved, whether or not the amount of minerals which may be affected by the Bill or that exist in the country are extensive.

Mr. Morrissey

Deputy Lemass talks about the Minister in this section looking after the interests of the landlords to a ridiculous extent. The only difference between the Minister and the Deputy is that the Deputy is look ing after the landlords' interests not quite to such a ridiculous extent as the Minister. I am opposed absolutely to the section. I agree with what Deputy Lemass said that it is preposterous that 25 per cent. royalty should be paid to the former owners. With regard to the Deputy's own amendment I am not quite sure that it means anything because I am not quite sure that in any case whether the mines were being worked efficiently or not that they were reserved to the State or to the landlord. I am not sure of that. I would like if the Minister would give us some information on the matter.

As far as I am concerned I am absolutely opposed to this section; it was my intention to delete the section, but that being a direct negative could not appear on the amendment paper. I propose to vote against the section unless the Minister makes a case which will satisfy me that it is either fair or equitable to pay this 25 per cent. to the former owner. I think the Minister will find it impossible to satisfy this House that we should agree to any such proposal. I am against the section altogether.

Mr. McGilligan

What Deputy Morrissey has said in reference to Deputy Lemass's amendment is quite ture. This is rather an involved piece of property law. There are exceptions and there will be exceptional cases to the sort of general statement I am to make, but that general statement holds as far as the great majority of cases. We are dealing here with mines and minerals which come into the possession of the State either because they are mines royal, that is gold and silver, or else, because they have come to the State under Article 11 because they were previously gripped by a State Department, the Irish Land Commission. That is the Department that controls most of the land where it is in the possession of a State Department. Any land that came to the Irish Land Commission came under certain Land Purchase Acts. This is to be taken with some little reservation; but in general the Land Purchase Acts do not affect the minerals which when the estates passed were being worked by the owner of the mines. So that mines which at the time were being worked, did not come into the possession of the Land Commission and therefore are not in the possession of the State at all. There will be exceptions, but, generally speaking, that is the law. That particular point was the one which Deputy Lemass referred to and which Deputy Morrissey has controverted. The position is as stated by Deputy Morrissey. This section deals with such minerals as actually were, previous to Article 11 of the Constitution, in the possession of the Land Commission, and from that flowed over to the State and the Government as a whole.

We took up the old provision of a 25 per cent. royalty with regard to all lands not affected by the 1923 Land Act, because there had been a previous bargain made that that 25 per cent. should go to the original owners. Remember what the 25 per cent. royalty is. It is not 25 per cent. of the value of the mineral wealth. It is 25 per cent. of whatever rent or royalty might have been reserved to the State. It does not mean that there is no extra burden put upon the person who develops the minerals. It means that whatever is taken from him is divided, three-fourths to the State and one-fourth to the original owner. That was part of the old bargain made under the earlier Land Purchase Acts, that the owner should get a fraction of whatever was reserved to the Land Commission. Now under the 1923 Act the State did not carry forward that precisely; it left a percentage of the mines and minerals under the Land Acts to be fixed afterwards by the Oireachtas. It stated that where minerals came into the possession of the State and those minerals were afterwards worked that there should be reserved to the owner such an amount as would afterwards be determined by the Oireachtas. We took the sliding scale and put in it the 25 per cent. It has been argued by a variety of people that the two classes of cases must be distinguished, the 1923 Land Act cases and the land cases under the old Acts. In the first case there was something amounting to a definite bargain under the old Land Purchase Acts with regard to the 25 per cent. In the second case there was no such bargain. If there was it was a fluctuating thing. It might be one per cent. or fifty per cent., or such a percentage as might be determined hereafter by the Oireachtas. It has been further represented to me that differentiation must be made as between the two types of cases. If there was a bargain in the first case in the land it passed under the earlier Acts. If mines and minerals have since been worked the previous owner has got some value. If they have not been worked no owner under that precise bargain has a right to expect anything and is not entitled to anything. I am prepared to accept that point of view.

Similarly it is argued that although you have had a differentiation between the 1923 and other Acts as under the 1923 Act the bargain was such a loose one that we are free without any consideration of the bargain to decide what the percentage is. On the whole, putting these two things together, if you consider that the bargain has been made with regard to the earlier Land Purchase Acts and if there is nothing except a loose bargain with regard to these things the simplest thing would be to wipe out the percentage altogether. Consequently I am disposed to agree with the counter amendment of Deputy Morrissey to drop the section. I am not quite sure that the dropping of the section would meet what is wanted however.

Mr. Doherty

Was there any case under the 1923 Act?

Mr. McGilligan

None that I know of, but I have not investigated that very thoroughly. I think in the investigation I would find the bargain that had been made and the percentage that had been fixed, but I think that any percentage that had been fixed must have been hypothetical because until a percentage had been decided nothing could have been legally exacted. There might be some arrangement that something should be looked to in the future.

I am not entirely sure that dropping the section will meet what is wanted because merely dropping the section means that we leave the law as it used to be under the earlier acts, and that we do not put in any percentage into the blank left in the 1923 Act; it may be better to have the whole thing tightened up and to say precisely with regard to all land in the Acts prior to 1923 that there should be no percentage paid. The twenty-five per cent. will be wiped out and we could say that with regard to the land under the 1923 Act the provisions now made by the Oireachtas are going to fill the gap. It may require a more positive amendment than dropping the section, but if the section is deleted I will accept it that the twenty-five per cent. should be entirely wiped out. That will be put in in the form of a positive amendment on the Report Stage.

Amendment 7 by leave withdrawn.

Section 14 negatived.

Section 15 agreed to.

SECTION 16.

Question proposed: "That Section 16 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Lemass

Arising out of Section 16 is it intended that the Minister shall furnish to the Dáil any information he has concerning the working of the Mines and Minerals Act or, is it the intention to make an annual report or in any way to give information to the members of the Dáil concerning the progress of the Act?

Mr. McGilligan

As I stated on an earlier amendment I will be prepared to consider the furnishing of particulars to the House say every twelve months or every six months as to leases that have been granted, always providing that if, in any six months' period, there is a lease almost but not entirely completed, that it will be carried forwards to the next period. I still abide by my point that these particulars should be furnished after the event and not while the lease is being made. I will consider an amendment on the Report Stage to furnish particulars within a certain period.

Section 16 agreed to.

Section 17 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 29.

Question proposed: "That Section 29 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Moore

On the Second Reading I drew the Minister's attention to sub-section (4). I cannot see the point in it yet. As I read the sub-section if a person has been given a right to obtain minerals in a certain area and if some person has a private residence on that part of the area, there is power to restrict the person who has the right to take minerals from interfering with the area surrounding the house, but such person must be paid compensation by the person owning the house. That seems to be unreasonable. It would be impossible to carry it out in certain cases. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say in regard to it.

Mr. McGilligan

I do not know if the Deputy gets the atmosphere proper to this section. The side note sums up the matter rather accurately. It refers to the "grant of restrictions on working minerals required for support" of, say, buildings. In other words, this is rather the opposite to the granting of ancillary rights. On the one hand, we have a feeling that people might own minerals beneath the surface and for the proper working of these minerals they would require to get certain ancillary rights such as we describe in Section 18. If necessary, in order to work the minerals they may divert a public road, a railway, a tramway or might demolish buildings and so on.

On the other hand, the reverse case may happen. You may have minerals the working of which may be a good and proper thing, but when one looks at the value of the minerals to be developed, and looks at the value of the building on the site, it appears that while the minerals could be worked, nevertheless care should be taken not to let down any buildings. In that case, it is a matter for determination by someone. There will be a report and a balance has to be taken as between the right to work the minerals and letting down or demolishing buildings, or alternatively paying compensation for working the minerals in such a way that support will be provided for the buildings. In both cases we say that the person getting certain rights ought to pay for the getting of those rights.

I think that the Deputy should read Section 29 and 18 together. It is possible the balance might shift from Section 29 to Section 18 and the position might be that what would be required is not a restriction on the working of the minerals, such restriction being necessary for the support of buildings, but a restriction the other way. It might be necessary to let down the buildings in order to work the minerals properly. That decision will be given on the calculation that is made between the relative value of letting down the buildings or working the minerals properly. Supposing the person is getting good value from the working of the minerals, but has to take away from that value by supporting a building, there has to be another calculation as to whether or not he is going to be fined arising out of the working of the minerals by certain restrictions being placed upon him. Alternatively, you might say, is he going to be allowed to demolish the building and pay compensation? If the two section are read together I think the Deputy will see that the two cases are met, and that there is a shifting over at a certain point from Section 18 to Section 29. If the two section are read together I do not think there will be any hardship. Sub-section (4) is the sub-section the Deputy referred to on the Second Reading. There again if there is compensation to be paid remember that the Mining Board comes in and will have the decision as to the amount. The question whether compensation is to be paid or not, or whether in fact it is a Section 18 point or a Section 29 point may lie with the Board for advisory opinion and with the Minister for final decision. The question of amount will arise afterwards and there the Board can come in again.

Mr. Moore

The principle is that if there is to be compensation it will have to be paid by the owner of the buildings which are to be left undisturbed.

Mr. McGilligan

Yes, if the Board thinks it is right.

Mr. Moore

Does it not look a very remarkable thing to propose? If there is a group of houses in any area like Avoca, and if someone who has got mining rights comes to the district, and an objection is made that if he operates he will interfere with the safety of the houses, the owner of the houses is able to get an order against him, but it will be on condition that the owner may have to pay compensation to the mines lease-holder. That is a thing that was never thought of. The owner of the houses may not be in a position to pay compensation to anybody. I do not see any justice or reason in the proposal.

Mr. McGilligan

Let us say the section is going to be removed. The Deputy might advance to that point. The section is wiped out, let us say. I have a right to mine in that particular area. There are buildings in that area. I have a right to come along and subtract the earth, let down the buildings and pay compensation to nobody. That would be the situation if this section were not there. This section comes in and says that an application may be made by the owner of the property. We started off with the person who owns the minerals having a right to take away the earth and let down the buildings. Then we come on to this section which says that any owner of buildings can apply for restrictions to be put on the man working the minerals either as regards the method of taking out the minerals or the packing. We put the restriction on the man who has the full rights. In the previous case, where the section was wiped out, the person who had buildings might simply have those buildings let down and that was all about them. We give him protection. There is a balance between the man with the previous right to remove the building and the man who has a right that his buildings should be kept up. There may be a balance of payment to be made between the two. Take sub-section 3:

The Minister in determining whether restrictions should be imposed shall have regard to the buildings or works or the cost of repairing damage likely to be caused thereto by subsidence, as compared with the value of the minerals, or to the importance of the erection or preservation of the buildings or works as compared with the importance, in the public interest, of the working of the minerals.

If there is to be compensation, there will be compensation on that. The Board will decide the amount of the compensation. They will have an effective say in that. You must take the priorities with regard to rights and how they are affected in this matter of restrictions. If the Deputy reads the section, he will understand that if a man gets a restriction he gets the right to have his buildings kept up, which he previously had not. He has, at any rate, the right of allowing compensation to the man who previously had the right to subtract the earth and let down the building.

Mr. Moore

I could never be convinced that the proposal is just. So far from legislating in that way, I think legislation should be directed towards protecting the man who is there already and owns property. If he is to be interfered with, the person operating for minerals should be obliged to compensate him. But, instead of that, there is the right to present this man, who has been living there, with a sudden demand. He may have invested all he has in his property there without any thought of subsequent disturbance. Now, it turns out that somebody has the right to take minerals from underneath his house or mill and that he may be presented by the Mining Board with a demand for compensation payable to the person who owns the minerals underneath his house. That does not look a reasonable thing by any means. I think it would be easy to bring in better legislation than that.

Mr. McGilligan

One remark the Deputy has just made shows me the error into which he has fallen. He took the case of a man with a building, a man who had no thought of any interference. Then, somebody else comes along and gets the right to work minerals underneath his property. Arising out of that, there is destruction of the building. The Deputy must compare Section 18 and 29. Section 18 refers to the grant of ancillary rights. The Deputy spoke of a man who had no thought of anybody interfering with him. This refers to a man who had always the right to work minerals and to work them to the destruction of the building. The owner of the building, although he may not have thought of it, was always subject to being let down suddenly. Then we emerge and say "You cannot do that. There will be restrictions on the method in which you will take up these minerals so as to protect the building." If the other is the case, the procedure will be under Section 18. A person comes along for the grant of ancillary rights which involve injury to or destruction of a building. In that case, he has to make a good case before the Mining Board that it is in the interest of the public the minerals should be taken up and the building let down. Then the owner of the building will get compensation. This is the reverse case.

Section agreed to.

Section 30 to 35 and Long Title agreed to.

The Dáil went out of Committee.

Bill reported without amendments. Report Stage fixed for Wednesday, 25th November.