asked the Minister for Lands if his attention has been called to reports in the Press of a judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in a case in County Donegal relating to the ownership of mineral rights in the course of which it was stated that the Land Commission procedure was contrary to natural justice; that people's rights were decided in their absence, and that proper notice was not given to the parties concerned; and, if so, if he will state what action he proposes to take in the matter.
Written Answers. - Ownership of Mineral Rights.
I have seen a report of the case referred to; it concerns an appeal brought by the Minister for Industry and Commerce from an order made by the Judicial Commissioner under Section 4 of the Mines and Minerals Act, 1931, relating to the ownership of granite rock on the estate of the Earl of Mount-charles, Co. Donegal. The Land Commission were not parties to the case and were not therefore represented at the hearing before the Supreme Court. I have had inquiries made in the matter and I find that rule 6 of the rules regulating procedure and appeals under Section 4 of the Mines and Minerals Act, 1931, provides that the Land Commission may, if they consider that notice may be dispensed with, determine forthwith a question referred to them by the Minister for Industry and Commerce under the Act and publish the determination in Iris Oifigiúil. The rules also provide that when the Land Commission determine a question without a hearing they shall, in addition to publishing the determination in Iris Oifigiúil, serve a notice of the determination personally or by registered post on all persons appearing to them to be interested. It is also provided in the rules that an appeal may be lodged by any interested person with the Appeal Tribunal, whether or not there has been a hearing by the Land Commission in the first instance. The rules provide, therefore, (1) that every determination by the Land Commission shall be brought to the notice of all interested parties, and (2) for an appeal in every case.
These rules were complied with in the Donegal case to which the Deputy's question refers. The parties concerned were notified of the determination or decision of the Land Commission, one of them appealed against the determination to the Appeal Tribunal, and it was the decision of the Tribunal delivered by the Judicial Commissioner on a point of law which was the subject of appeal to the Supreme Court.
The effect of the judgment of the Supreme Court appears to be that there must now be a public hearing in the first instance, by the Land Commission, in every case, however trifling, in which the Department of Industry and Commerce, in dealing with a mining proposition, require to know whether an exclusive mining right has been reserved to the State in any particular land and whether any particular substance can be mined under such exclusive right. The Land Commission, as indicated in their rules, did not consider that it was necessary to put the parties concerned and the State to the expense and delay of a public hearing in every case. I understand that in the vast majority of these inquiries the information as to the existence of a State mining right is at once available by examination of the records of the land purchase proceedings affecting the lands. No action on my part seems to be called for.