asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if his attention has been drawn to a statement to the effect that a startling and extremely confused situation surrounds mineral ownership and acquisition procedures in this country; if he agrees with this statement; and if he will make a statement on the position and indicate if he intends to take any measures to deal with the problem.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Mineral Ownership.
30.
I take it that the Deputy is referring to a statement in a pamphlet published last July. I consider that this statement exaggerates greatly any difficulties that exist in this complex area.
I would refer the Deputy to my reply on 24th April, 1975 to a question by Deputy O'Malley on this subject. My examination of the question of mineral ownership and acquisition procedures with a view to devising the most suitable legislation to meet the situation is proceeding.
The mining interests concerned are to present me in the near future with their proposals for dealing with the problem, in answer to a request which I put to them quite some time ago. I should make it clear, however, that the interests of other parties vitally concerned will have to be borne in mind in considering this matter.
Is there any record, first, of the amount of minerals owned by the State and by individuals and, secondly, of minerals that do not seem to be owned by anybody?
I should like the Deputy to put that down as a separate question. While I would endeavour to give him as much information as we possess, it is the sort of hard factual information that I should hate to give off the cuff. However, if the Deputy puts down a question I shall answer it as fully as possible.
I am assuming from what the Minister has said that there are considerable legal and, possibly, constitutional difficulties involved in the problem that he is trying to resolve but he will appreciate that similar kinds of problems have arisen in connection with building land. May we take it that there will be greater expedition in the Minister's dealing of the problem referred to here than there has been in dealing with the Kenny Report on building land, a report which seems to have sunk without trace?
As the Deputy has indicated in his supplementary, he is aware of the range and complexity of this question. As one who has had extensive ministerial responsibility he will be aware that these considerations, very properly, go far beyond departmental boundaries. I affirm that the situation is not satisfactory and I should like to see the matter resolved quickly. To the extent that I can exert pressure on the people who are responsible to me, I shall do so and I have done so, but the Deputy understands the functioning of the whole State structure well enough to know that there are many different agencies as well as the legal profession and other people involved. I would be misleading the House if I were to suggest that the matter is one which could be resolved in months. I have asked the industry to put forward their recommendations. Investigations are being pursued vigorously but the matter is very complex.
Therefore, we are talking in terms of years rather than months?
I am afraid that is true.
If this is a matter which does not need a revision of the Constitution, why must we wait years for it to be dealt with?
This is an aspect on which I have not yet got clear advice. It may or may not be a question of constitutional revision but I have not as yet got a clear answer from people wiser than I in these matters.
No doubt the Minister has given thought to the matter.