Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 10 Dec 1959

Vol. 178 No. 8

Petroleum and Other Minerals Development Bill, 1959—Recommittal Stage.

I should like to make a suggestion at this stage in regard to the procedure which I should like to be adopted in regard to the taking of these amendments. I have circulated to Deputy Sweetman, or to the Leader of the Opposition— I forget which—and Deputy Norton, what I propose to do in so far as there are some sections which must be recommitted. One is at the instance of Deputy Norton and Deputy Sweetman and the others will be necessary as a result of a potential charge arising out of State funds. I suggest that amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 22 and 23 should be recommitted.

Amendment No. 25, I think, not 23.

I think it is No. 23.

I am advised it is No. 25.

I will also be dealing with No. 25 on the same basis.

No. 23 is contingent on No. 25.

We agree to recommitting them.

I thought we could get over the Recommittal Stage.

To have the Recommittal Stage first?

The Recommittal Stage and then the Report Stage.

I do not think anything is going to arise on recommittal but as was agreed by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, if anything does arise, one has the theoretical, and, I suppose, the practical right to propose an amendment on Report, if one wants to do so. I do not visua-lise any likelihood of my wanting to do so, but I want to preserve my right.

It is not likely to arise but I appreciate the point. My suggestion is intended to be for convenience.

Could we agree to recommitting Section 72? I have no further interest in it.

Yes, I agree to do that.

Would the Minister tell us the circumstances in which he is seeking power to sell State minerals?

Is it necessary to go into that at this stage?

So far as all the other amendments are concerned, as far as I can see, they arise because the Minister has met points which we raised with him on the Committee Stage and he has met them fairly. Certainly I am raising no point in respect of any amendment the Minister now proposes except in regard to Section 72 and which is covered to some degree by the deletion of Section 6.

The Deputy means Section 72.

No, Section 6 is being deleted.

As I understand the situation, the deletion of Section 6 deletes the power of the Minister to sell petroleum but in Section 72 he has retained the power to sell other minerals. It is that particular amendment that I am interested in. Why is the Minister retaining the power to sell other minerals?

That is my only surviving interest in it.

The proposal is that these amendments and Section 72 be recommitted and for the convenience of the House, and to prevent the House going in and out of Committee, to take them all together.

I should be very pleased if the Chair would permit the Minister to take Section 72 to enable me to fulfil another commitment which is now one hour and ten minutes overdue.

I have no objection.

Certainly.

Ordered: That the Bill be recommitted in respect of Section 72 and certain amendments.
The Dáil went into Committee on the Bill accordingly.
Question proposed: "That Section 72 stand part of the Bill."

I was asked in Committee to explain the justification for taking power to sell mineral rights which are in the possession of the State and to which Section 72 relates. The sale of petroleum rights is dealt with in Section 6 and, of course, I have agreed to delete that section. The point was that the Minister ought to secure the development of State mineral deposits by leasing rather by a sale of them to commercial interests. I think there is a mistake on the Deputy's part and on the part of any other Deputy who thinks there is any general intention on my part to sell mineral rights in the State's possession. I would agree that, as a rule, development ought to be on the basis of State lease and this would be especially true if there were obligations about compensation to previous owners of the mineral rights.

The object of taking the powers conferred by Section 72 is to enable us to surmount a particular kind of difficulty which has already occurred in practice and which may recur. It could happen, for instance, that in a particular area which is suitable for development, about 90 per cent of the mineral rights might be in private ownership, the remaining 10 per cent being State owned. It would be possible for the interest party to procure a State lease in respect of the mineral rights in State ownership but royalties would be payable to the Minister on the basis of the quantity of minerals produced under the State lease. There would be obvious difficulties in determining the quantity of minerals produced in the State leasehold or leaseholds, if they represent no more than fragmentary areas in the middle of private leaseholds. In a case such as this, it would be most helpful to the operator that the State should be able to sell the mineral rights and the powers contained in Section 72 would be extremely useful to deal with this kind of difficulty.

It is possible that circumstances could arise in which the development of mineral resources would be dependent upon the sale by the State of mineral rights to some commercial organisation. It might be one of the conditions of the development, for instance, imposed by the organisation that the mineral rights should be sold rather than leased. The important thing is to secure the development of whatever mineral resources we have and there would be obvious advantages in being able to sell State mineral rights if this would promote their commercial development. It may not, perhaps, be appreciated that comparatively extensive mineral deposits are being developed otherwise than under a State lease. An outstanding example is the case of Castlecomer coalfield. Also, extensive areas in the Arigna coalfields are developed on a similar basis.

To sum up, only in the case where, the State owns little patches of mineral rights in a wider area which is being developed and for the sake of convenience and perhaps for the sake of inducement to particular operators, the Minister might be empowered to sell these small patches to make the operation of the mines more practicable and to avoid difficulties in determining what royalties there should be when only a limited portion of the total area of operation is in State ownership.

Would the Minister be prepared to give an undertaking that the power would not be used for any other purpose without coming back to this House.

Personally, I should be prepared to do so.

I suggest to the Minister that, while we cannot do it now because of the Stage of the Bill with which we are dealing, he might consider between now and the Seanad sitting, putting in some provision requiring him to get a resolution passed by the House to approve a sale in such a case. I have no doubt that the Minister will honour his obligations and I am not questioning the Minister's word but it is a wide power to give in one line and a half. If it is used only in the circumstances explained by the Minister, I am not worried about it but in order to ensure that nothing can take place under the section without the House knowing it, would the Minister ensure that proposals for the sale of mineral rights are laid on the Table of the House or if there was anything substantial involved, that a resolution of approval would be sought in the House? I leave it to the Minister to consider.

The difficulty is that this is the second last day of the sitting and this Bill must be law before Christmas.

I should like to explain in that regard that the Ambassador Oil company are quite prepared to give an extension of some months for the enactment of this legislation and they would be prepared to amend the agreement accordingly. It is not my intention to introduce the Bill in the Seanad on this side of Christmas because I thought it would be only fair to the Seanad that they should have some reasonable time in which to debate it. Therefore, I hope to present it to the Seanad early in the New Year and ask the Ambassador Oil company to alter the agreement as they have undertaken to do, so as to make the agreement operative provided the legislation is effective by the end of next March.

If that is the case, we might have taken an entirely different view of certain amendments. We took this view only because the Minister up to this made it clear to us that he wanted the Bill enacted on this side of Christmas.

No. I made only one reference to that and what I said then was that I wanted to get it out of the Dáil before Christmas. I did not say that with any intention of trying to create an undue rush.

Perhaps I mistakenly took that impression.

The Deputy probably did. The points raised by Deputy Norton are to an extent questions of degree as he will appreciate but I shall look into them to see if it is necessary either to lay whatever agreement is required on the Table of the House or whether I shall require a resolution of the House.

This would not arise at all so far as oil was concerned were it not for the fact that the Minister is tidying up infirmities in our existing legislation.

It is an unusual thing perhaps for the Opposition to make a suggestion mitigating a proposal of that kind but I think the Minister would meet the House fairly if he undertook to put some kind of notice on the Table without prejudice to its effect unless rescinded by resolution of either House within twenty-one days. I do not think it is fair to rush the Minister into this——

The Minister has done the rushing.

In any case, I think in the light of his personal undertaking here today, he would meet our reasonable requirements if he undertook that some instrument would be put on the Table of the House without prejudice to its effectiveness unless revoked by resolution of either House within twenty-one days. It is then up to the Opposition, if there is anything amiss in the instrument, to raise it themselves. Otherwise, it goes through. I admit that is not the customary approach of the Opposition but I believe it is a practicable and reasonable procedure and if the Minister did that, he would be meeting the House fairly.

I am inclined to accept that, with the reservation that I shall look into the proposal in the meantime.

Question put and agreed to.

I should like to avoid confusion. Some of the amendments are recommitted. We are dealing with the recommittal ones first and the Minister gave a list which does not agree with my list.

That is as between you and the Minister.

In case there should be confusion, it appears to be that amendments Nos. 24 and 25 propose to do to the Principal Act precisely what amendment No. 5 does to this one and there is also the possibility of creating a charge on the Exchequer and, if so, it will have to be recommitted.

Let us recommit it then.

You are quite right, Sir.

It has been suggested there might be one debate on all these, Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 22, 24, and 25.

What about Nos. 1 and 2?

They will come back on Report.

Does any of this group include the area at all?

We are discussing them one by one and then we shall discuss them on Report.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 10, section 13—

(a) in line 46, to insert "or a nuisance" before "is caused", and

(b) in line 54, to insert "or nuisance" after "damage".

The purpose of this amendment is to include as ground for compensation as well as damage the causing of nuisance, which was Deputy Dillon's point. It was suggested that perhaps common law method might be sufficient, but at present the only means of avoiding a nuisance under such circumstances might be an injunction restraining any operatives from carrying on certain works which would constitute a nuisance. That would obviously be undesirable if we are to get any benefit from mineral exploration. Therefore, it was thought more advisable to put in a provision which would provide compensation for nuisance and that provision will go right through the scale of amendments, whether it is in relation to acquisition of rights, exploration, or any other activity in relation to mineral development.

Nuisance in this case would be more or less equivalent to loss of amenities?

There is a question of obnoxious smells also.

If I am kept awake, I lose the amenity of my sleep.

Would it also cover the case of a landowner who is kept off his land and loses the benefit of that land for a certain time? Is that covered by this as well?

That would probably come under ordinary damage, but the inclusion of the word "nuisance" would ensure he would be covered in such event for payment of compensation.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 6:—

In page 12, section 17—

(a) in line 2, to insert "or a nuisance" before "is caused", and

(b) in lines 7 and 9, to insert "or nuisance" after "damage".

That is consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 7:—

In page 12, to delete section 19 (1) and substitute the following new subsection—

"(1) (a) Where operations in connection with petroleum by any person, who is or was the licence under a licence under this Part or the lessee under a petroleum lease, have been abandoned or discontinued and it appears to the Minister that any borehole shaft or outlet used in connection with those operations is in such a condition as to be likely to cause an accident, the Minister may serve by registered post on that person a notice requiring him, within a specified time, to cause the top or entrance of the borehole shaft or outlet to be covered or fenced so as to prevent accidents.

(b) Where notice is served under paragraph (a) of this subsection and the person on whom the notice is served (in this subsection referred to as the defaulter) does not comply with the notice, the following provisions shall have effect—

(i) the Minister may take such action as was required by the notice to be taken by the defaulter,

(ii) the Minister may, for the purpose of exercising the power conferred by subparagraph (i) of this paragraph, enter on any land,

(iii) any expenses incurred by the Minister in exercise of the powers conferred by subparagraph (i) of this paragraph shall be recoverable by the Minister from the defaulter as a simple contract debt in any court of competent jurisdiction,

(iv) where damage to the surface of land or to mineral deposits or to water supplies is caused directly or indirectly by exercising the powers conferred by subparagraph (i) or (ii) of this paragraph—

(I) the Minister shall be liable to pay compensation for such damage, and the provisions of Chapter VII of this Part shall apply in respect of such compensation,

(II) where the Minister pays compensation under clause (I) of this subparagraph, then, unless the damage in respect of which the compensation is payable was caused by his negligence, the Minister shall be entitled to recover as a simple contract debt in any court of competent jurisdiction from the defaulter a sum equal to the amount of such compensation.

(v) where the Minister is entitled under subparagraph (iii) or (iv) of this paragraph to recover any sum from the defaulter, a certificate sealed with the official seal of the Minister and certifying the amount of that sum shall be prima facie evidence of the amount of that sum.

This is a different matter, I think.

The object of this amendment is to make special provision for the covering of abandoned shafts of bore holes in order to avoid the danger of accidents. Under the amendment, a direct obligation is now being imposed upon the person who bores a hole to seal off any hole that may be abandoned. In case he fails to do so, the Minister will be empowered to come in and seal the hole.

At his expense?

At his expense. There was a provision which relieved the Minister of any liability for carrying out such a function, but, I considered that this provision would be unfair. If, however, any damage caused by the Minister was due to negligence of the Minister's agent, the Minister will not be able to recover compensation from any party and will be liable to pay it himself.

That decision of the Minister's must have caused a heartache in the Department of Industry and Commerce and in the Department of Finance.

Mostly Finance.

It was readily accepted in the Department of Industry and Commerce, no matter about Finance.

Perhaps it will never get as far as Finance.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 8:

In pages 12 and 13 to delete Section 19 (4).

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 16, Section 29 (1)—

(a) in line 20, to insert "or a nuisance" before "is caused", and

(b) in line 24, to insert "or nuisance" after "damage".

This is consequential on amendment No. 5, or at least it is similar to No. 5.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 22:—

In page 28, before section 75, to insert the following new section:—

"Subsection (1) of section 10 of the Principal Act is hereby amended in the following respects—

(a) ‘or to mineral deposits or to water supplies or a nuisance' shall be inserted after ‘land';

(b) ‘or nuisance' shall be inserted after ‘damage' where the later word thirdly occurs."

This is also compensation for nuisance.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 75 consequentially deleted.

I move amendment No. 23:—

In page 29, section 78 (1)—

(a) in line 38, to insert "or a nuisance" before "is caused", and

(b) in line 42, to insert "or nuisance" after "damage".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 29, before section 80, to insert the following new section:—

"Subsection (1) of section 25 of the Principal Act is hereby amended in the following respects—

(a) ‘or to mineral deposits or to water supplies or a nuisance' shall be inserted after ‘land',

(b) ‘or nuisance' shall be inserted after ‘damage' where the latter word thirdly occurs."

This is also compensation for nuisance.

It is the same principle.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 80 consequentially deleted.

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 30, before section 81, to insert the following new section:—

Subsection (3) of section 31 of the Principal Act is hereby amended in the following respects—

(a) ‘or to mineral deposits or to water supplies or a nuisance' shall be inserted after ‘land';

(b) ‘or nuisance' shall be inserted after ‘damage' where the latter word secondly and fourthly occurs."

This is a similar amendment providing compensation for nuisance.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 81 cosequentially deleted.
Bill, as amended on recommittal, reported.
Top
Share